The Great RockÂ’nÂ’Roll Scandal

At the Public Entertainments Licence (PEL) hearing for Glastonbury Festival, there was a short discussion before a vote was held on whether to grant or refuse the PEL.

Possible reasons for refusing the licence were discussed, including whether the applicant was fit to hold the licence. The councillor who raised this as a reason he wanted used was Dick Skidmore – who proudly stated he didn't get involved in politics (why is he a councillor then?). During discussions, he had commended Melvin Benn on the professionalism of the event run this year, which Melvin was in operational charge of.

The Councils own solicitor (Martin Evans) advised the members of the Regulatory Board that this would not be a legally valid reason, as the applicant was Glastonbury Festival (2003) Ltd, not Michael Eavis or Glastonbury Festivals Ltd. This company has never been prosecuted for Licence violations, and therefore could not be considered unfit.

Glastonbury Festival (2003) Ltd is the company that ran this years festival - Glastonbury Festival (2002) Ltd - with a rename. This company was only formed about a year ago. Michael is one of three directors, the others being Elizabeth Eavis & Melvin Benn.

However, one of the reasons stated for the PEL refusal is:
"Taking into account the past record of failure to comply with licenced conditions by Mr. Eavis and Glastonbury Festivals Ltd., the applicant is not fit to hold the licence."

It should be noted that this same company was fit to be granted a licence for a festival in 2002.

The inability of these councillors to listen to their own legal advice shows their own unsuitability to make such a decision. It shows the urgent need for events of such national importance be taken out of the hands of local councils altogether, or to allow the right to appeal to central government in the same way that local planning decisions can be.

We would hate to pre-judge the decision that will be taken by the magistrates that hear the appeal. But we cannot possibly see how they can uphold this as a legally valid reason.

The other reasons given for the refusal were:
Unacceptable environmental impact.
Unacceptable increase in crime and disorder, particularly outside of the site in Pilton and other villages, taking into account the Council's statutory duty under Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to do all it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area.
The location of the site is not suitable for the proposed entertainment.

These are more complex issues on which we don't feel qualified to properly comment. But we do find it hard to understand why the site is considered unsuitable for next year when it was suitable this year.

Latest Updates