There is not really enough information provided in this article.

However, as a noise abatement notice has been served (at some point)- it does at least show that it is perfectly possible for councils to use the correct anti-noise legislation to takle noise complaints.

This rather destroys the argument provided by The Local Government Association (LGA) who warned that "deregulating music events would leave councils powerless to respond to noisy events."

Any council's response to an actual occurance of measurable noise pollution, emanating from any source, would be made under this legislation and the proposed removal of additional entertainment licensing permission would do nothing to change this.

CIEH principal policy officer Howard Price said: 'The clear consequence of enacting the paper's proposals will, in our view, be an increase in complaints which, as local authority resources continue to diminish, will go increasingly unanswered.'

Mr Price said music at licensed premises was the third most common source of noise complaints received by environmental health departments and denied the government's assertion that obtaining a Temporary Event Notice was a bureaucratic burden.

I am not sure if this statement can be supported by Mr Price but whatever the first two most common source of noise complaints may be - all of these would have to be tackled by the exsisting anti-noise pollution legislation.

If the statement had any truth, it would show that all the current anti-noise legislation is in need of reform and that the Council's preferred use of the additional entertainment licensing in the Licensing Act 2003, which is effective in limiting and deterring all live music - is pretty ineffective in preventing what is referred to as noise complaints.

What he and the LGA Group lobby refer to as noise complaints are in fact objections made to potential noise pollution at planning and licensing applications, often in advance of a note of music being sounded.

What council employees may lose, if the proposals are accepted, is to their current ability to deter and limit all live music in advance of a note being sounded, based only on the incorrect assumption that all live music, in all venues and on all occasions WILL always present a measurable source of noise pollution, which needs actual binding licensing conditions to address what, in advance, can only be a potential for noise pollution.   

The bottom line here is that if the LGA Group lobby consider the existing anti-noise legislation to be inadequate, in any form, then it is this legislation which they should be activly seen to be lobbying to improve.

For the only time they refer to any problems is in response to any attempt to address the damage this lobby has and is determined to continue to inflict upon live music.