BT
It seems extraordinary that the council couldn't just issue a temporary licence or a temp exemption, pending a proper sorting out. It's not as if they are dealing with some dodgy nightclub, or a rave. Sounds like a severe breakdown of common sense to me.
Or perhaps both council and BBC were paralysed by fear of litigation. Once you've realised that (a) a licence is required; and (b) one has not been issued, what happens if you go ahead anyway and someone is injured? Is the council liable for failing to properly exercise its supervisory responsibility, or is the BBC for failing to have the right chit? I guess once the licence is issued, the risk of incident is unchanged, but the council is in the clear.
Or perhaps both council and BBC were paralysed by fear of litigation. Once you've realised that (a) a licence is required; and (b) one has not been issued, what happens if you go ahead anyway and someone is injured? Is the council liable for failing to properly exercise its supervisory responsibility, or is the BBC for failing to have the right chit? I guess once the licence is issued, the risk of incident is unchanged, but the council is in the clear.