Dear Mr Grainger

This from one of my lawyer contacts: Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. 'If the application to renew the PEL was lodged prior to the expiry date of the 30th June, the previous licence continues in force until there has been a determination of the application to renew by the Council.'

On the 26/09/01, in front of witnesses, I requested as a member of the public, to see the valid PEL, that both Mr Locke 10/09/01and Mr Grainger 25/09/01, both have stated the Cove House Inn has.

The licensee was unable to do this. The licence he did have was issued on 16/05/01and valid until 30th June next.

The licensee noticed in July that the PEL had expired and contacted Sue Allen the Licensing Manager. A new application was made, the public notice appearing in the Dorset Evening Echo 08/08/01. The PEL public hearing to decide this new application has yet to be set up.

The following extracts are from a letter to Mr Locke, which the writer has given me full permission to use. Mr Polshaw asks if I will to endeavour to obtain a full reply for him from Mr Locke. Mr Locke's comments to Mr Polshaw are copied from his letter 10/09/01 and are in italics.

"1. The Cove House Inn has a Public Entertainment Licence granted by the Council and can hold folk sessions without difficulty."

"3. The issues as to public safety and nuisance suffered by neighbours apply whatever the source of music. We have currently an application from the Cove House Inn to extend hours for music outside and we have 4 or 5 objections from neighbours. They have a legitimate point of view too."

At the moment you know the nature of the complaints you refer to. I understand that this will soon be public knowledge. Could you please confirm that you have four or five comments on the application all with "a legitimate point of view" but could you please confirm that these are to an application for a Public Entertainment Licence and that all of these are objections to this application, as you stated?

I have subsequently been informed that that you are responsible for public licensing matters. is there any reason that you did not correct my assumption that you were not?

"4. Any affect on tourism is not being caused by actions of the Council which have been legally and reasonably correct but by misinformation as to what the real situation is."

Given the "misinformation" that you have supplied in your reply to me, I will make no further comment other than to question whether you are in fact aware of what "the real situation is", or if you are aware, you do not appear to wish to inform others exactly what "the real situation is".

I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely Dave Polshaw

The following is reference to the above from a letter to me from Mr Grainger 25/09/01.

"In fact, the reply given in an e-mail confirmed that as of 10th September, the Cove House Inn has a Public Entertainment Licence. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 182 covers this provision and the reply is correct."

I would be grateful if you could provide a full and satisfactory explanation, under the statues you refer to, as to how you can defend the above statements as being correct?