The latest locally is that the Cove is to have a valid PEL, as the public hearing took place today.

The hearing result was one of those fudges designed to keep everyone happy, it could have been worse. It was a step forward that the officer's recommendation was not imposed. Mainly I think due to the licensee's argument about the safety and public order aspect of the curfew. He rather forcefully stated that if the curfew was imposed he would not hold the charity event as he considered the condition unsafe and unworkable.

They went away to decide but came back still insisting on a non-standard condition of their own.

The 6.00 pm curfew was not imposed but the outside charity event must cease at 11.00 pm. This is the only electrical, amplified music allowed to take place outside but non-electric non-amplified music, i.e. Morris Dancing and acoustic instruments can take place outside. That is the condition but we will have to wait to see the exact wording.

We are chipping away here. They are now making a distinction they were not prepared to make before. We have gone from outside entertainment to outside musical entertainment to outside electrical amplified musical entertainment. Can they really make this distinction in the condition? Well they have anyway.

It was never established if there was or had been a substantive noise hazard presented to the objectors, given their distance from the establishment, but sadly their objections were enough to prevent any outside amplified music, except for the August charity event, from taking place.

I had to really push the issue to be able to have my say on the non-standard condition. The chairman having to ask the legal section's opinion. They eventually said it would be OK. For the public notice ask for comments and I had written commenting my support, but the hearing procedure only refers to and gives the right to speak to objectors.

The process is rather biased in favour of objectors There were two objectors present and they backtracked so much that it was difficult to see what they were actually objecting to. That left the poor old EHO, who was supporting the objectors, completely out on his own and looking very silly indeed.

The licensee forced the Licensing Manager to take responsibility for the expiry of the earlier PEL. She accepted that the renewal reminders were sent out in March and that the licensee did not get one as his licence was only issued in May. The chairman stepped in at that point to prevent her incriminating herself any further.

In hindsight, I think it was rather clever to aim high. I asked them not to impose a condition and they imposed one. Had I only asked for a distinction to be made between music that was a noise and music that was not, I suspect they would not have made any distinction. *Smiles*