Anyone who thinks that councils won't try to recover as much revenue as possible from PELs is being naive. We all know that it seems to cost councils much more to do things than it does for private companies. There is no way that they will be able to handle the basic licensing side as cheaply as the current system - so they will be looking for some way to recover their costs.

Greenwich Council versus "The Cricketers" makes this very clear. The PEL that the pub now has, only allows live entertainment two nights a week. If they wanted more nights, it would cost them correspondingly more. Does this mean that the premises are only safe enough for live performance twice a week ? It seems strange that paying more money would suddenly make them safe for more frequent sessions. The only conclusion is that the council consider the PEL as a tax on live music - and therefor a form of revenue.

Incidently, what would happen if the cost of PELs was "capped" by the law ? Would pubs like "The Cricketers" be able to apply for a refund ? - I somehow doubt it. I think that there is a distinct possibility that if some councils are prevented from charging their own rates for PELs, they will tend to refuse applications, except where they have a vested interest.

BTW John9 - are you hoping that Hull will be able to opt out of the national scheme ? - just like they do with their telephone service.