It was like pulling teeth but the DCMS have finally replied as follows. However, as you correctly observe, the Act does allow for the possibility that premises or land may be an entertainment facility.

Leaving aside the fact that no one really knows when the premises or land may or may be claimed to be provide as a licensable Entertainment facility - I wonder why this rather important fact receives little attention in the S 182 Guidance and does not appear with the other examples provided?

This is the worst example of bad legislation as it provides no protection at all for the public, like so much else in this legislation. If those who are paid to enforce it - wish to claim that the premises are a provided Entertainment Facility, they can. And if they don't (or don't need to as there are already so many other ways of making an activity licensable) they can ignore the legislation's requirement.   

In answer to the following question (which I thought was fairly easy one) I received a (short) answer that I still do not understand.

However, I would be very grateful if you could answer for me, what is the obvious question after reading your comments: The following situation is one that is far more common than one where any instruments were provided. What is the situation currently and what would be the case should the proposal be accepted - where no instruments were being provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music but there is no question that the premises are being provided, on a regular basis for this purpose - would the premises be Entertainment Facilities, require specific Entertainment Permission and be illegal without this?

The short answer to your last question is, as we have previously said, that it depends on the nature of the premises and whether it is meaningful to regard them as "facilities" that are being provided for making music or dancing. Whether the premises themselves have anything to do with enabling the music or dancing to occur in any distinctive way is obviously relevant to this.
We covered the point with the example of the piano in the bar versus the specially-designed dance floor that occupies most or all of a room.

In the first case the thing claimed to be a
separate "facility" adds nothing to the making of the music, apart from the mere presence of the piano and the participants.

In the second, the room is specifically set up to enable dancing to take place and so does add something to enabling the activity itself to take place. Whether the alleged facility is provided on a regular basis or not does not seem to us to be relevant. It is the nature of the thing itself, not how often it is provided, that determines whether it is an "entertainment facility" or not. Schedule 1 does not contain anything that allows one to characterise (or decline to characterise) something as an entertainment facility on the basis of how frequently it is used. The Guidance does not contradict this.

The last point seems to bring us back to the S 182 Guidance, where it is claimed that the premises are not being provided for 'spontaneous' music. But as the S 182 Guidance iteslf states - Licensing Authorities can ignore it................