They also HAVE to abide by the Licensing Act and all other legislation. They may not do so, but they are acting ultra vires if they do nt do so. My point was that it should be cheaper and easier to use the magistrates court to override a failure by the council to act in accordance with that Act than it is to pursue them for breaching the HRA.

I have accepted your point about a court challenge - but as there is no definition of words like 'incidental' and no case law that has established this - the outcome over such issues may be uncertain, protracted and possibly not as easy as you may think.

But the HRA is in place now and it means that they must already apply all other legislation in line with this and where there is a conflict - they MUST not use any other legislation that does not comply. Just saying that an additional licence may be required - is not sufficient

Where local authorities currently prevent the public's freedom of expression by insisting that a pub session cannot take place without an PEL but cannot specify the grounds and the particular safety risk at the premises, that only this additional licence can address - they are already in breach of the HRA. The right of freedom of expression is a conditional right but that means that this right it can only be prevented when these certain conditions apply.   

That is why it is so important to make sure that your local authority is aware of this for inclusion in this local Licensing Policy - as their legal officers seem unwilling to advise them of this.