Home / New pilot licensing scheme for London
7th April 2025
Felicity Tulloch, Head of Licensing & Leisure
The announcement by the Government late last week that London is set to pilot a new licensing scheme to allow the Mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, to ‘call in’ ‘blocked’ licensing applications came as a surprise to much of the hospitality sector and those who advise it.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said ‘We’ve heard industry concerns and we’re partnering with busineses to understand what changes need to be made because a thriving nighttime economy is good for local economies.’ She said the move will mean businesses have ‘the conditions to grow’ and are ‘not tied down by unnecessarily burdensome red tape.’
Deputy PM Angela Rayner said “Too often we have seen the complaints of a vocal minority promoted over the need for our country to grow.
Sir Sadiq said that new powers enabling him to overrule local council’s decisions will ‘allow us to do more to support the capital’s pubs, clubs and music venues.’
It certainly seems, from what little information we currently have, to be a positive move for the trade. But how will it work in practice? And is it the best way to support hospitality at a time when the headwinds the sector is facing are so strong? Will it counterbalance the well publicised challenges the sector is grappling with, or is it simply designed to distract just at a time when rising business rates, increases to the National Minimum Wage and higher National Insurance costs start to bite? It’s too early to tell, and the devil will be in the detail, as it always is.
Perhaps there are other ways in which the licensing regime could be changed to support hospitality. As the Licensing Act enters its 20th year, it probably does need a bit of a refresh. Like most of us who were around at its inception, it’s starting to show its age!
Our experience tells us that the biggest barrier to innovation and development faced by operators in some parts of the country is the existence of a Cumulative Impact Policy. Such policies have the effect (broadly) of making it very difficult to obtain new licences in certain locations. An obligation to say that in spite of such a policy, each application is dealt with on its own merits, often feels like lip service. Some are almost impenetrable, and even those which can be overcome results in significant extra burden, time and of course, costs.
Some London Boroughs have the strictest licensing policies in the country. We have clients who have without doubt been put off venturing into some parts of central London because they can ill afford the time, expense and uncertainty that they will be faced with. The costs are prohibitive save for the most buoyant businesses or wealthy landlords with deep pockets.
A slightly disingenuous statement from Westminster City Council followed the announcement last week, stating that they ‘grant the vast majority of licensing applications, which are only refused where safety concerns are raised by the Police or significant disruption is likely.’ Applications for concepts deemed suitable by the LA are granted, but it’s not as simple for those who want to try something novel.
Newspaper advertisements – a requirement for any new or ‘full’ variation application, often running into many hundreds of pounds – are a significant financial burden on licensed premises looking to amend their licence. Times have moved on – anyone interested in what is going on on the licensing front in their area no longer gets their licensing information by looking for a small advert in their local paper – they sign up to email alerts from their local authority or look online, or spot the blue notice and enquire further. A simple way surely to save operators money with little impact on the integrity of the system?
Perhaps a more generous TEN allowance could be provided. TENs are used all the time for licence extensions or one off events and the annual allowance was increased during Covid, but has now reverted to previous allowances. Would there be any harm in upping it again, but permanently this time?
And whatever happened to Ancillary Sellers Notices? Billed as a light touch regime (wasn’t that what the Licensing Act was originally touted as?) for florists and hairdressers but which never materialised.
It might also be worth revisiting the off sales easements introduced during Covid but removed at incredibly short notice last month following a consultation exercise which didn’t get a lot of engagement.
Minor variations when introduced a few years ago were a welcome addition to the licensing process, allowing small amendments (such as to a premises layout) to be dealt with quickly and cheaply. But could we go further? Could small changes to licences, such as the removal of some conditions be simply ‘notified’ with a system of ‘review’ a couple of months later to see if there had been any ill effects, and approved or made permanent after period of bedding in? If issues after this trial period were unearthed then full variation application would be needed to allow wider scrutiny.
Preparing for and attending hearings before Licensing Sub Committees cause added delay and expense and so perhaps stricter criteria for what constitutes a ‘relevant representation’ could be developed. Perhaps clearer messaging that a representation can be in support of an application, not just against. A ‘representation’ has become synonymous with ‘objection’ and that shouldn’t be the case. It might help to show a more balanced picture to those who make the decisions.
Hopefully the announcement last week will be the start of something bigger. It’s worth looking again at the fundamental tenets of the Licensing Act 2003 and tackling the deterrents or financial burdens already within it, rather than dealing with the problems that arise at the other end of the process. Rather than dealing with the blockages at the end, perhaps it’s an opportunity to ease the environment at the start of the process.