To: The Magistrate Court FROM: Mr. G. P. Walker
North Parade Road, PO Box 141
Bath Kingswood
BA1 5AF Bristol BS30 5RY
TEL: (0117) 9671311
DATE: 29th Oct 1998
RE: APPEAL re: Abatement Notice in Respect of Statutory Nuisance
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in complaint of an ABATEMENT NOTICE IN RESPECT OF STATUTORY NUISANCE, issued to me by Mr D. CARTER, Designation Environmental Health Officer.
This was served on me on 9th October, in Bath Abbey Churchyard, shortly after I had finished a street performance in the square.
The Notice was issued with respect to a complaint Mr Carter had received that day, and a couple of previous complaints he had received on earlier days, regarding the level of the amplifier I use in my performance. The equipment is used to amplify my voice and guitar and equalize the levels, delivering a balanced sound to my audience, at an "Easy Listening level." While I do not have a strong voice, I do possess quite a pleasant one, which with amplification is very suited to the quiet ballad material I perform.
Performing under the name "Grod", or "Grod Groddler", I have been giving street performances since August 1997, and have played regularly in Bath over the summer of `98. I have been a professional performer for 7 years. My "Concerts" of guitar and voice, have been only a recent venture, both to aid my cashflow and to try out my material to see if people genuinely enjoy my music, and possibly further this side of my performing career.
I made a point of introducing myself to local businesses, Bath Abbey and Pump Rooms Security, and Mr Carter of Environmental Health, that should there be any problems, to make me aware of them. I was there to perform, not to cause a nuisance.
The result is that I have had a wonderful summer in Bath, I got a very favourable response from the tourists, residents and local businesses. I have had some very encouraging remarks, and performed for Prince Charles on his visit to the Abbey. I also received a request from Councillor Keith Lunt, to perform at Royal Victoria Park, on the strength of my performances he had personally heard outside the Pump Rooms.
I am fully aware of the "Busker Code of Conduct", which I see as a good way of regulation, and try to adhere to the code at all times. This includes not directly approaching people for money, allowing them to choose whether to donate and how much. However, during my performances, I have regularly seen people openly begging from the people listening to me, which has gone on unchecked by the security within the Square. More often then not these people begging are rather the worse the wear for alcohol, and receive donations not always out of sympathy, but for fear of attack.
This type of behaviour is I would suggest more in line with being a "Statutory Nuisance".
On two occasions I was fortunate to diffuse two encounters where I was nearly attacked myself by a couple of these characters. On another occasion I assisted in rescuing a handbag taken by a thief from a lady watching my performance. On another occasion I was asked by two Russian tourists to walk them back to their hotel because they were being followed around by a couple of drunks.
In giving street performances I assisted tourists with directions, smiled for every photograph, and generally tried to make myself an asset to the Square, with respect to it`s surroundings.
I am sure local businesses, especially the cafe opposite the Pump Rooms, have benefited from my performances, in that in the evenings I have drawn some quite big audiences. Which indicates to me that people enjoy my performances.
However, there is the old saying "You can`t please all of the people all of the time."
More normally, the person simply chooses not to make a donation. On the odd occasion there is been a complaint about the level of my amplifier. This has sometimes been directly to myself, when I have advised the individual to lodge their complaint at the Environmental Health Office.
On four occasions over the summer of 1998, Mr. Carter, The Environmental Health Officer has come to advise me that he has received a complaint about the volume. On every occasion I have turned the amplifier down to a level he deemed was suitable. Even when I felt the compliant was unjustified.
One problem with finding the level to amplify, is that the acoustics of the Square varies on the weather and the amount of people in the Square. The normal run of events is that when I start playing, there are normally only a few people in the Abbey churchyard, but people come into the square to hear my performance, and as this number grows, the acoustics change.
The way I respond to this situation is as follows. From experience (And the levels previously advised by Mr. Carter as being suitable), I start with a reasonable level and start with an instrumental on the guitar, and next sing one of my normal ballads. This allows me to make any adjustments to find a level of amplification to the acoustics of that day. I then proceed at that level, which then "Gets quieter" as people enter the square to listen and deaden the acoustics by their presence.
On occasions I have turned the amplification down myself on realising it was unduly too loud. On other occasions I have sort advice from Pump Rooms/Abbey staff, especially if there is a performance or service on. In fact I do not perform at all during the Sunday Services out of my own respect.
There are two squares I normally perform at in Bath, in the Abbey Churchyard. One directly outside the front of the Abbey, the other by the side of the Abbey. Both require different amplification, as they are acoustically different. Experience has shown me what appeared to be an acceptable level at both venues.
If I "blasted out" my performances (My amplifier is capable of outputting twice the volume I actually play at), I do not think I would get the number of people my concerts attract, nor the same value of donations. Nor the amount of encouraging comments that I have been fortunate to receive.
Having been an entertainer for seven years (I am particularly well known as a Children’s Entertainer.) I have come to accept that from time to time I will get complaints. The simple fact is that even though I keep in mind that one compliant is equivalent to five who couldn`t be bothered to complain, the amount of encouraging comments far outweigh the complaints.
As a performer, I look at complaints carefully to see if they are truly justified. I am out (And get paid) for entertaining, not offending people, nor breaking the law. Do I change part of my show which hundreds enjoy because one person feels offended? On the occasions when the complaint has been constructive, I have made changes. Some complaints I feel are unmerited and do not respond, though I normally offer apologies if I feel the person has genuinely felt offended.
With regard to the Notice served on me by Mr. Carter, I have a number of complaints on the nature, manner and reasons, as to why the Notice was served.
Regarding the Appeals process, stated on the back of the notice:
Re 2: a) I believe that the abatement notice is not justified by section 80 of the 1990 Act.
(I) I was performing at a level that had previously been agreed as suitable by Mr. Carter on a previous occasion, when notifying me of a complaint, several weeks previously. On that occasion I have used that level for playing in that square, by the side the Abbey.
(ii) Mr. Carter gave no previous warning the day the Notice was served that my amplifier was unduly too loud, as he had on three occasions, earlier in the summer. On those occasions I have turned down and since the previous complaint had received no more complaints. I have since performed at that level, which Mr. Carter himself was happy with.
(iii) On two other occasions Mr Carter has approached me to let me know of a complaint, but did not request for me to turn the volume down as he felt the complaint was unjustified, having experienced the volume himself.
(iv) On noticing my name had been printed on the Notice, so deemed it somewhat pre-ordained, on inquiry I was told he had also received two other complaints from previous evenings, but had not been able to contact me. This infers that Mr. Carter did not come to check to see if the complaints received were in fact justified, which I much doubt because I was performing at levels previously agreed by himself. Therefore the Notice should not have been served for these occasions.
Re: 2 (c)
(i) As previously stated above, Mr. Carter on previous occasions has notified me of complaints regarding the level on my amplifier, to which I have responded by turning the level down to one he deemed acceptable. I recall no previous threat that I would receive a Noise Abatement Notice on the next complaint. On this occasion Mr. Carter simply served the Notice, at the end of my performance, without any attempt for me to have rectified the situation.
Stating that I had finished performing that day, on being served the Notice I tried to politely discuss the complaint and my legal rights, and gave him the opportunity of not serving the Notice.
I would further add, in response to him serving the notice, in effect banning me from performing, the audience who had gathered and heard my performance, let their feeling politely known to Mr Carter, when I explained why I couldn`t play the "encore" they had expected. While a complaint had been made, there was a rather a large crowd who had taken pleasure from the same "Noise".
None of which gave any support to the allegation that my amplifier was too loud.
On the occasion of this performance, a flute player accompanied me. This is something that had developed through the summer and we had performed together quite regularly, as well as separately. On being served the Notice, he defended my protest that I/we were not playing any louder then levels previously deemed suitable by Mr, Carter. (Though it is possible, and I conceded, that the weather on that particular day MIGHT have allowed the sound top travel further.)
Mr. Carter would not divulge any information that I asked him regarding the complaint, including the whereabouts of the complainant (ie someone in the immediate square? The Abbey? The Pump Rooms? The Tourist Office opposite? Down the opposing streets?).
RE 2: (d) (also relating to subsection e(iii))
(i) At the time of the performance, late afternoon falls well within the times allowed to busk according to "The Busker Code", issued by the council. This states 8pm as being the latest time.
Within the terms of the Code, I testify that the noise level of my amplifier that day did not fall outside those agreed terms. And that the complaint should have been deemed unwarranted by Mr Carter. Especially as I explained that I had been playing at a level previously thought suitable by his own judgement. My belief is that I was playing below the legally required level and at a time I was legally allowed to perform in the Abbey Churchyard.
RE 2: (g)
With reference to my statements given above, I testify that I was amplified to a level previously deemed suitable by Mr. Carter, following a similar complaint, some weeks previously. In the interim period I had no knowledge of any further complaints, and believed that a suitable level had been found. Mr. Carter gave me no opportunity to rectify the noise level, and in fact served the Notice at the end of my performance, not during it.
RE 2 (h,i, & j)
(i) As previously stated, I was performing with the accompaniment of a flute, who on occasion used the same amplifier that I was using. They were not served a similar Notice. As it was the amplifier deemed to be causing the offence, the fact that two separate performers were using the same amplification, on the same occasion, surely Notice should be served on BOTH performers.
I am certainly not trying to implicate my colleague, more justify that the serving of the Notice was unfairly unbiased towards myself. Again I testify that the amplifier was set at levels previously deemed suitable by Mr. Carter.
With regard to this appeal, I was given 21 days to appeal against the Notice. I have used this time to gain opinions from Bath residents and businesses in the area, especially those who have heard me play. No one has been of the opinion that I was/have been, playing at an unreasonable, illegal level.
Even on the day in question I asked Mr Carter if he would like to measure the sound on a decibel meter. This was declined. I was confident the test would have supported my argument.
As previously stated, the amplifier is there to project my "not-too-strong" voice and to get a balance for the guitar I play. It is something I believe I use sensibly and do not abuse. The amplifier is cable of playing at a far higher volume then the level I perform at. I deem it essential as a performance tool, and that in issuing the Notice, banning use of the amplifier, the effect is to ban me from performing. Which greatly restrains my means to make an income.
When I perform my street entertainment, my return in donations is normally between £15 and £30 for each hour that I play. In fact the money I have earned from street entertainment has allowed me to stave off bankruptcy.
The ban has meant that I have been unable to receive this income. I normally play for around three hours, four nights/days a week. This constitutes a financial loss to myself, because of this ban, between £540-£1080. This financial hardship has caused me to fall behind on rent and other normal bills, threatening my accommodation and welfare, causing stress and duress on my behalf.
I understand that if the Magistrate upholds any one of my appeals against the Notice, that the Notice would be deemed unfairly or wrongly served. On that occasion I wish to seek financial compensation, both for the loss of income, and duress caused by the ban.
Yours faithfully,
Mr. G.P. Walker Bus.St.Dip.M