If it comes from a complaint about noise, there are a whole heap of other routes to go through before an event can be stopped, so I suspect those sufferers of noisy 'public' neighbours will go straight for the PEL before going through the lengthy and difficult to prove Noise Abatement/Environmental process.

The neighbours may make a complaint to the local authority about noise. It is the local authority who chooses the method of dealing with this. If the noise comes from some form of live music, the local authority will always chose to deal with it by means of a PEL if they can, for the simple reason that they can charge a fee for this.

They can't if the activity is exempt, and this is why LAs want the two in a bar exemption to go. No one has demonstrated that all this exempt live music does in fact present a serious noise cancern, or one that cannot be dealt with other legislation.

PELs are not very satifactory for the neighbours as this method usually involves permitting the noise/music in some form by obtaining the neighbours consent to some form of compromise. As it is not in the LA's interest to actually prevent the noise, although contrary to what you may be told by them at this point, they can deal with this or other noise perfectly well by using these methods. The process will not be any more difficult or lengthy than PELs, which can be very lengthy, but will not bring in any revenue.

The sickening thing is, the government have already admitted that it is amplified music that is the major problem and it's the crowds outside after a gig causing a disturbance that they want to remove.

This is not what I have seen in any Government statement. They have only claimed that the 'two in a bar' exemption must go as one person with an amplifier can make a lot of noise. They have not even claimed that existing noise legislation is inadequte and if they did, all the bodies involved consider that the existing noise legislation is more than enough already.

Why they just don't do the crowds outside (presumably on a public highway) for 'affray' (more than 3 people standing together) or obstruction (more than 2 people standing still in one place) which already exist is beyond me.

Why do LAs insist on still issuing PELs, which enable late opening hours, to premises in residential areas where this late night outside activity presents a problem? Could it be because of the revenue gained from these PELs?

It is a complete myth that PELs prevent noise or protect nieghbours. If LAs did not have a vested interest in issuing as many PELs as they can, any noise problems presented to residents could and should be effectivly dealt with by using the correct legislation.