It is not open to the authority to disapply the legal requirements to hold a PEL in respect of one particular type of entertainment. This Authority has a duty to apply legislation fairly and impartially.

The above was expressed in the report to the 05/06/01 Social /Community Committee meeting.

This is exactly what the panel of members have subsequently done, in imposing their non-standard condition to the Cove House Inn's new PEL at the hearing set up for this on 05/12/01. It could be argued that the panel making these distinctions is the proper thing to do but for this to happen the activity first needs to be put at risk by being classed as a public entertainment and run the risk of the case not ever being presented to a panel.

1 The licensee just stops the activity and does not apply for a PEL.
2 If an application is made and not objected to, the panel will not need to be set up.

A common sense distinction has now been made by the panel between electrical amplified music and music which is not this, based on objectors concerns about loud rock music presenting a possible noise hazard.

This was a common sense distinction reflecting a wider more balanced view that did not appear to be an option for the council's officers, whose first recommendation, which was implemented by them alone, was to prevent 'all outside entertainment'.

When this was seen to have prevented Morris Dancing and non-musical entertainment, this was changed to 'all outside musical entertainment'.

The panel was asked for the level and extent of any possible future noise hazard to be addressed by the appropriate noise legislation rather than impose a non-standard condition to the PEL.

The above reaffirms the risks presented to customers activities that have never received any public complaints, By the activity being described as public entertainment, its participants as performers and being caught up in legislation never designed for such a purpose.

From the report for the original hearing scheduled for 09/05/01. Backgound As a result of the Licensing Manager witnessing an unlicensed performance of public entertainment at the premises, the licensee's were invited to apply for a Public Entertainment Licence.

For the noise concerns were old ones that had been dealt with and unrelated to the application but were responsible for the hearings being required and resulting delays and expense. The noise objections were only resurfacing because the customer's activities had been classed as public entertainment and the procedure then requiring that the public were asked to comment on the PEL application.

If the council's officers had been instructed not to consider members of the public making music for their own enjoyment as performers in a public entertainment, the risk to the activity and all of the delays, uncertainty, expense to the taxpayers and bad publicity for the borough could have been avoided.

I can only hope that lessons are leaned from this and that it will not be repeated. For there is still the matter of identical activities continuing to take place in another pub, without a PEL. I trust that common sense will prevail before we have to go through the same procedure again and risk this activity.

I am not too hopeful, however.............