Sorry but I can't see any way that other local sessions can be enabled, if they insist that the Palm Session is NOW required to pay for a PEL and more importantly, that this session will continue to be prevented if they do not apply.

If it is unsafe without additional licensing to hold your session now, it was also unsafe when your Council placed the public at risk and failed in in their satutory duty to insist on a PEL for 3 years. You say that it was advertised, so in effect this illegal activity was being brought to their attention every time an advert appeared, for all this time.

Have you asked why they failed to protect the public, and why they themselves been in breach of 'Sch. 1, s. 12(1)(b)(i)', Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982' for so long?

Having enabled this session for so long, it matters little to this aspect, if they now rush to insist the Palm Tree obtain a PEL because the session is unsafe without it. They have been and are in breach of the law. They are going to look very silly to the watching media if they decide to prosecute the Palm Tree now........Ask them what is the safety concern that make the activity unsafe at this point without paying them for an additional licence, and enables them to prevent the public's freedom of expression? What has changed then, for the law has not and the cover given to ensure the public's safety via the Justice's Licence and its safety inspections and other measures have not changed either.

Council's can claim not to have noticed unlicensed venues but it is difficult to do this with much credibility, if the session has been advertised openly for 3 years (or indeed for any period). I really think that rather than just letting LAs strangle us with this legislation, it is time that we used the same legislation against them (as a bargaining position anyway).

Remenber that is is always fear of this, that the officers use to justify their actions, as the law giving them no choice. Well under this legislation, they do not have a choice and if they fail to act, when they are made aware through advertising of unlicensed activities, they are in breach of this same legisation.

This long-term breach of the law by them, may just focus the Council's attention on finding that sessions generally and the activity they have openly permitted for 3 years, is not really licensable public entertainment after all. And that they are 'off the hook'.