Policy paper

Licensing policy sprint: joint industry and HM government taskforce report

Published 31 July 2025

This report is from the licensing taskforce, made up of representatives from government, industry, police and local government.

1. Foreword

The Licensing Act 2003 has reached its twentieth anniversary. The act came into force in 2005, pioneered by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Tessa Jowell, with the recognition that businesses in England and Wales covered by licensing regimes deserved to have a more responsive and flexible system to meet the needs of a modern vibrant society. These reforms in the 2000s recognised that licensed businesses and the services they provide are important culturally, socially as well as economically – and are central to creating places people want to live, work and visit – borne out by unlocking investment in high streets and the flourishing of casual dining and cafes in the early years of the act.

Licensed businesses are a critical part of the creative life of our town and city centres, our internationally renowned live music, tourism and visitor offer – and as important are everyday community and grassroots hubs.

The original ethos behind the act was outlined in the statutory guidance from the time, which set out 6 principal aims:

• the introduction of better and more proportionate regulation to give businesses greater freedom and flexibility to meet their customers’ expectations
• greater choice for consumers, including tourists, about where, when and how they spend their leisure time
• the encouragement of more family-friendly premises where younger children can be free to go with the family
• further development within communities of our rich culture of live music, dancing and theatre, both in rural areas and in our towns and cities
• the regeneration of areas that need the increased investment and employment opportunities that a thriving and safe night-time economy can bring
• the necessary protection of local residents

The original guidance went on to say: “some licensing in the past has been unfocused and led to disproportionate standard conditions and routine inspection which has hindered the development of business and local economies without any positive gain for society.”

“The act ensures that premises which are causing problems within our communities can be dealt with appropriately but provides a much lighter touch for those businesses and community activities which benefit and enhance people’s lives by providing important opportunities for the enjoyment of leisure time.” (Guidance to the Licensing Act, July 2004).

The time is now arguably overdue to review key aspects of the act, strip back areas of concern and recapture the spirit of dynamic deregulation, and to free business up not just to deliver economic growth but also to deliver what modern customers and the wider community needs. This should be balanced with robust and fair requirements to uphold public safety, address crime and disorder resulting in safer streets, and protect women, girls and vulnerable people.

This is timely, not just because of the twentieth anniversary and the dramatically different consumer landscape compared to 2025, but also more immediately coming out of COVID – when the hospitality, creative and tourism sectors were closed or operated under severe restrictions which impacted on their ability to bring life, light and safe social spaces to communities. Many failed to ever reopen (there are 17,000 fewer venues (15%) in 2024 compared to 2019^{[footnote 1]} ), others changed out of all recognition in terms of their offering – and the majority are still struggling with ‘economic long COVID’.

As we rebuild and look to the government’s growth mission and 80% employment rate target, it is right that we reflect on this changing landscape and also changing consumer tastes and requirements, how our guests socialise during the day and at night, and how we can curate our town and city centres, high streets and neighbourhoods to reflect and encourage diversity, vibrancy and dynamism.

Licensing is about regulating the provision of licensable activities carried out on licensed premises. As the judge said in the landmark Hope and Glory case, it is about achieving a balanced, proportionate approach with decisions taken at the lowest level necessary to achieve the desired outcome or meet the licensing objectives:

“Licensing decisions often involve weighing a variety of competing considerations: the demand for licensed establishments, the economic benefit to the proprietor and to the locality by drawing in visitors and stimulating the demand, the effect on law and order, the impact on the lives of those who live and work in the vicinity, and so on. Sometimes a licensing decision may involve narrower questions, such as whether noise, noxious smells or litter coming from premises amount to a public nuisance. Although such questions are in a sense questions of fact, they are not questions of the ‘heads or tails’ variety. They involve an evaluation of what is to be regarded as reasonably acceptable in the particular location. In any case, deciding what (if any) conditions should be attached to a licence as necessary and proportionate to the promotion of the statutory licensing objectives is essentially a matter of judgment rather than a matter of pure fact.” Hope & Glory (Court of Appeal), 2011, Toulson LJ.

This crucial principle is not routinely taken forward in day-to-day licensing and must be addressed to bring balance back to the system.

That balance has become lost over time. Too often policy at a national and local level can be unfocused and, in many areas, has led to disproportionate conditions and routine inspection (often with a crime and disorder perspective taking precedence) without reference to the cost to the business or economic growth, the provision of amenity or the impact on the wider cultural life of the community.

In short, 20 years on and we are back to trying to redress the same problems the original act was trying to fix. Our objective now should be to improve good operating practice, promote partnership, showcase proportionate and fair regulation, and demonstrate firm but targeted enforcement.

This taskforce policy sprint goes to the heart of the government’s objectives and priorities – promoting economic growth, regenerating the high street, bringing light and life to our town and city centres, proving pathways to employment in every part of the UK and opportunities for everyone, everywhere and at every skill level. They are also targeted where they will deliver the biggest savings to licensing authorities in bureaucracy, time and financial cost.

These recommendations are also about fostering socially productive growth – helping to deliver the visitor economy strategy, industrial strategy, and the promotion of high streets by removing the barriers businesses face to evolve, innovate and respond to changing consumer needs. At the same time, it ensures that there is no diminution of the strong controls the act puts in place, and for the licensing objectives to remain preeminent.

The 2004 guidance said: “through the legislation we hope that local people and visitors to this country will have better opportunities to enjoy their leisure time safely while on or arriving at or leaving a huge range of venues” – that is what we are hoping to achieve and recapture through these targeted immediate priority recommendations.

2. Taskforce aims and objectives

The joint industry and HM government licensing policy sprint taskforce was established on 9 April 2025 and ran until 16 May 2025. The taskforce was co-chaired by Nick Mackenzie, CEO of Greene King, and Gareth Thomas MP, Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports.

The taskforce brought together representatives from government, industry, police and local government – including mayoral areas – to make recommendations delivering effective change in the licensing system that fosters vibrant hospitality, night-time economy, creative and cultural industries. Across the main taskforce meetings and the 3 working groups, this sprint delivered constructive dialogue and decisions around both the act itself and closely related regimes – decisions on which to prioritise were based on a consensus that they would help to achieve the taskforce aims and complement the 4 licensing objectives. It should be noted that crucially all 10 priority recommendations were the product of consensus and agreement across all stakeholders.

Businesses have indicated that aspects of the current licensing system under the Licensing Act 2003 lacks proportionality, consistency, and transparency, thus creating barriers to growth and investment for business. As stated in the taskforce terms of reference, businesses and ministers would like to see a more enabling and agile approach to licensing with a greater focus on growth. We were heartened to hear ministers confirm at the launch of the taskforce that the requirement for regulators to have regard to economic growth does apply to local regulators such as licensing authorities.

To address these challenges, the taskforce explored and evaluated options to create a licensing system that better supports business growth while ensuring public order and community interests remain protected. This included considering various new mechanisms and the feasibility of developing updated guidance and policy direction.

The core questions given to the taskforce at the outset were:

• what are the current issues relating to how the licensing system is operating and how, if at all, have these changed over the last few years?

• have other policy changes, such as planning, impacted licensing decisions?

• given business has reported a lack of proportionality, consistency, and transparency, how we can improve the current licensing system under both Licensing Act 2003 and through other legislation, to remove the barriers to growth and investment for business?

• are there changes in the way government issues guidance to local authorities to steer their decisions regarding licensing that could support industry, for instance in a similar way to the planning system?

• how do we ensure any proposed changes to the licensing regime do not undermine the licensing objectives to prevent crime and disorder and reflect the views of local authorities and the police as well as the needs of business?

The taskforce spent significant time to reflect the direction from government stakeholders to prioritise recommendations based on level of regulatory intervention, consultation and implementation time in order to ensure swift delivery following the sprint process. Using the core questions as a framework, the taskforce formed 3 working groups focusing on (i) process and procedure, (ii) music and cultural venues and (iii) community and neighbourhood licensing. Throughout the 6-week sprint process, these working groups gathered views and evidence related to the core questions set out in the terms of reference and met as a unified group to develop recommendations to government.

These are collated in this report for consideration by HM government.

Taskforce members

Nick Mackenzie (co-chair) Chief Executive, Greene King

Gareth Thomas MP (co-chair) Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports

Dr Charisse Beaumont Chief Executive, Black Lives in Music

Paul Broadhurst Head of 24 Hour London, Greater London Authority

Jon Collins Chief Executive, Live music Industry Venues and Events

DCC Scott Green West Midlands Police, NPCC Licensing Lead

Carly Heath Night Time Economy Adviser for Bristol

Dr Michael Kill Chief Executive, the Night Time Industries Association

Claire McColgan CBE Director of Culture, Liverpool City Region

Kate Nicholls OBE Chief Executive, UKHospitality and Chair, Institute of Licensing

Sylvia Oates Chief Executive, SixTillSix

Ruth Stanier OBE^{[footnote 2]} Assistant Director of Policy, Local Government Association (LGA)

Working group chairs

Community and neighbourhood licensing – Nick Mackenzie, Kate Nicholls

Music, cultural and entertainment venues – Jon Collins, Michael Kill

Process and procedure – Kate Nicholls (with input and support from the Institute of Licensing)

3. Priority recommendations

Overview

At the mid-point of the taskforce sprint process, members were requested by the minister to identify immediately deliverable priority recommendations from each of the working groups.

The taskforce took the direction from the Chancellor, Secretary of State for Business and Trade and Minister Thomas to be bold and creative when putting forward recommendations that would deliver against the objectives of the sprint process, and to consider different vehicles for delivery of licensing recommendations that align with wider government objectives.

Such an example is the London Strategic Licensing Pilot Scheme, which looks to review licensing powers and explore the potential for a pilot. The taskforce backed this initiative and felt it should be taken forward as a priority, with immediate changes to the Section 182 Guidance for London.

These 10 initial recommendations are selected based on the ability to deliver business growth for both large and small operators, improve proportionality and transparency, safeguard the licensing objectives and improve the licensing regime over future years. At the same time, they were assessed against ease of delivery and level of regulatory change to reflect the intention of taking forward any recommendations within a swift timeframe.

As set out in the foreword, front of mind was the original intention behind the act itself – namely to provide a balanced system that delivers business freedom and growth, customer choice, protection of residents and promotion of culture and communities. Also crucial was to put forward recommendations that allowed for a more permissive regulatory system that enables growth and development and move away from a solely enforcement approach that seeks to eliminate all risk.

Two of these recommendations in particular – a National Licensing Policy Framework and an Evidence and Data Protocol – are structured in such a way that many of the non-legislative recommendations that were highlighted during the wider taskforce work could be incorporated and delivered via these mechanisms. As such, sections 4 and 5 of this report set out in more detail areas which could be delivered by these.

There was significant debate in the taskforce around whether such new delivery mechanisms should sit elsewhere within government to bring the act back to its roots and enable its objectives to be implemented in a more balanced way in line with the original intention. On reflection, the taskforce does understand that such a move would be challenging for many reasons and could in fact hamper the speed of delivery of our recommendations, which is crucial. On that basis, we recommend that the framework, given it would deliver on a number of existing government strategies and objectives, should be co-owned by the relevant departments.

Outside of these initial 10 recommendations, later sections of this report set out no less important considerations. It is suggested that these should be taken forward by government (as they are valuable in their own right) by embedding in existing structures such as the Hospitality Sector Council, as part of high streets and new towns standalone strategies and others to ensure that the work of the taskforce and feedback gathered from a range of stakeholders can be taken forward to deliver against the growth and wider government objectives.

The taskforce recognises important points around resourcing considerations made by local government and police stakeholders in particular. Once a view is taken on the recommendations and future workstreams become clear, then this should be discussed as part of any future actions. The taskforce also reflected on the sprint policy process as a positive mechanism to bring cross-government departments, industry, local government and other stakeholders together to identify solutions across Whitehall policy areas and deliver meaningful recommendations at pace. One future area that particularly stood out, given issues raised as part of this licensing sprint, was high street regeneration policy and we would recommend government consider this policy area for a dedicated similar process. Licensing sprint members could also be used to bring experiences of this current sprint process to other policy areas looking at better and more streamlined business regulation.

To note the statutory Section 182 guidance to the act must be reviewed and consulted on in conjunction with any recommendations taken forward. Other measures to deliver the recommendations may also be needed.

Recommendation 1: the introduction of a National Licensing Policy Framework

Reason for recommendation

The taskforce identified a lack of balance in applying many aspects of the act to everyday licensing process and procedures, including due recognition of the cultural, economic, social impact and benefits of licensed premises.

It was agreed that to successfully rebalance and deliver without the need for major legislative change, a National Licensing Policy Framework must be created which would allow delivery of government objectives around growth, high streets and fair regulation at the same time as addressing public order, crime and disorder and protection of vulnerable groups. This would also allow licensing delivery to remain at a local level whilst at the same time taking forward government objectives and strategic aims.

The National Licensing Policy Framework is designed to ensure statutory consistency and a harmonised national policy approach across licensing authorities while still allowing local decision making and determination of applications. This, together with the Arbitration, Evidence and Enforcement Protocol referred to in recommendation 8, will help secure fairer, more accountable decision making while reducing uncertainty and inconsistency across jurisdictions.

Crucially, this framework is expected to deliver significant cost benefits:

• for industry, it will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, avoid disproportionate conditions, and limit the need for protracted appeals or legal challenge

• for the public purse, it will support more efficient licensing processes, reduce the likelihood of costly disputes or judicial reviews, and ensure resources are focused on cases with a sound evidential basis

The framework would sit in between the act and the statutory guidance. The framework would address areas to support growth and considering the wider benefits of licensed premises culture in statutory processes without primary legislation. It would also use ‘licensing circulars’ to explain elements or give direction to local areas to respond to evolving situations without the need for Parliamentary intervention (a recent example being extended hours for the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup – which needed to go through Parliamentary procedure) or to give clarification and interpretation around nationally applicable elements of licensing practice.

As the framework would allow for delivery of economic, cultural and social objectives via a range of government strategies alongside those related to public order and safety, it is strongly recommended that the framework is co-owned across government departments: Home Office, Department for Business and Trade (DBT), Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The framework as a mechanism would also help deliver on the government’s Regulation for Growth commitments, one of which is to reduce administrative costs for businesses by 25%. Given licensed premises have multiple regulators, this is a new way of helping to achieve this objective.

Section 4 of this report sets out areas that would form the content of such a framework, and key direction could be delivered by the means of ‘licensing circulars’ (as seen in similar regimes such as planning). Circulars would allow delivery of government objectives on relevant areas such as support for our high streets, the upcoming industrial strategy and maximising growth from our creative industries by giving direction to local licensing regimes and can be used to endorse good practice protocols.

See section 4 for more detail.

Recommendation 2: a one-time (twentieth anniversary) licensing condition ‘amnesty’ to modernise and streamline licences

Reason for recommendation

The taskforce recommends a one-time licensing condition ‘amnesty’ centred around the twentieth anniversary of the act. This would apply to all licences, allow a focused opportunity to ‘dust down’ licences that have, for example, ‘grandfathered’ conditions from the pre-2005 regime, conditions that have been included due to blanket policies rather than the individual operation of the business, or have simply become outdated in the modern world.

The introduction of a condition ‘amnesty’ would help to bring licences up to date and remove unnecessary bureaucracy and burden. Under the current system, there is no automatic mechanism to review conditions on licences that have been previously introduced, unless a variation application is made by the business. By introducing and publicising an ‘amnesty’ scheme, it would allow businesses – together with their licensing authority and police – the opportunity to ‘MOT’ the conditions on a licence in a light-touch manner, checking that they are still fit for purpose. Examples could include where the style of operation has completely changed, local areas have developed in new ways or legislation has been duplicated. Where this is the case, and there is agreement between the relevant parties, there should be an opportunity for these conditions to be removed from the licence.

While the taskforce acknowledges that the minor variations process exists, businesses are often deterred from making use of it because there is no definition of a minor or substantive (major) variation, implicit assumptions that changes will not be capable of being made through the process and that businesses are concerned around opening up their licence to greater scrutiny or additional undertakings – as can happen. The ‘amnesty’ would be a dual benefit – it would allow ‘grandfathered’ conditions to be reviewed and removed by agreement as a one-off. Going forward it would also provide indications of what is likely to form the basis of minor/substantive variations which could be provided to operators, licensing authorities and responsible authorities as part of a framework ‘circular’ as outlined in recommendation 1.

A ’licensing moment’ created by such an announcement would signal to the wider licensing community a positive atmosphere of partnership working and freeing up of unnecessary restrictions.

Recommendation 3: hearings and appeals

Reason for recommendation

Regarding licensing hearings, there are a number of improvements that can be made to ensure they are more proportionate, streamlined and backed by clear evidence. Specifically, the taskforce recommends a strengthening of the objections procedure for responsible authorities, to ensure they are backed by clear and transparent advice. This could be achieved via the introduction of a minimum evidence threshold for both conditions and objections through amendments to the section 182 guidance. Under the current process for hearings, there is no clearly defined threshold that must be met for an objection to be introduced, which can lead to an oversaturation of licensing hearings and require additional local authority resource.

While it remains important that all relevant parties have a say when it comes to licensing and hearings, the introduction of a specific threshold for responsible authorities that must be met for a representation to be made would ensure that businesses, local authorities and police can be confident that the objection is backed by clear evidence. This would improve the fairness of hearings and help businesses and local authorities to work in a more collaborative manner, increasing all parties’ trust and confidence in the licensing system.

For objections from residents, we recognise that the process should remain simple but encourage some detail of the reason for objection and a removal of an automatic ‘benefit of the doubt’.

On related areas such as withdrawn representations, improvements here could reduce the burden on local authorities to not have to proceed to a hearing if representations are withdrawn removing the need for a potentially long, drawn-out hearing process. This would be more efficient for applicants also. Procedural changes for hearings should also be looked at alongside better working of the existing processes. A key point highlighted by the taskforce related to giving licensing officers the discretion to make recommendations to committees on contested applications or enforcement activity (at the moment they cannot do so). A new appeals procedure would also be valued – such as a centralised specialist independent appeals system with district judges specialising in licensing knowledge and expertise sitting separately or a Tier-1 tribunal as with gambling legislation. Consideration should be given to an independent appeals board or ombudsman for disputed decisions.

Recommendation 4: remove the hard-copy local newspaper advertising requirement

Current requirements

Under the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005, there is a requirement that advertisements are placed in a local newspaper for:

• a new premises licence
• a full variation of a licence

Local newspapers charge an unregulated fee for such advertisements, with no appeal mechanism for challenging the cost. This advertising cost is built into the licensing fees system alongside other application fees (if in future fees are to be reviewed, advertising must be included also).

Reason for recommendation

This is a cost for a licensed business that serves no meaningful purpose other than to provide a revenue stream to companies operating local newspapers and should be removed. While the original rationale for this requirement will have been to ensure proper public notice of licence applications and variations, and accountability and transparency, over time this has become increasingly outdated as a means of serving a notice as readership and distribution of local newspapers has significantly declined. An example of this is the Birmingham Post which currently has a readership 8,300 in city of 1.1 million (less than 0.8%).

There is already a requirement to display a physical hard copy notice of new or major variation of licences on or near the premises in question to make local residents aware, it is also displayed online, and some local authorities write out to residents to flag new licence applications in their area. The retention of these mechanisms will ensure residents continue to be made aware of new licences in their area.

Based on a list of 250 invoice charges, the average cost to place an advert was found to be £332 – around 115 local newspapers are charging above the average. Across the hospitality sector, the removal of this requirement would reduce business costs by £1 million to £2 million per year (conservative estimate). It would also result in a saving for local authorities in terms of the administrative costs for managing compliance of this element of the process.

Newspaper advertising is one part of a total application cost for business on top of the existing application fees (which range from £100 to £1,905), annual fees (which range from £70 to £1,050), any costs for pre-application mediation and advice (in some areas), and the production of hard copy administrative paperwork. If the newspaper advertising requirement is removed – which would increase local authority resource as well – then there may be scope to look more creatively at fees, including consideration of taskforce proposals for administrative fees for mediation and pre-application guidance.

Recommendation 5: improve the potential for licensed premises to better use their outside spaces by removing regulatory barriers, improving licensing decisions, simplifying processes and achieving greater consistency

Current requirements

Licensed premises are restricted by a number of aspects regarding outside trading. This includes:

• restrictive conditions, for example remaining COVID requirements on seating and food provision
• off-sales entitlement only given via application rather than automatic inclusion on the licence
• inability to use other outside areas on an interim basis, for example outside other premises that are closed
• time-limited pavement licences, which require renewal and fee payment
• historic restrictions on live music

Outdoor areas are hugely important to a range of licensed premises, many of them local community operators. The recent good weather across England and Wales in the first quarter of 2025 has translated directly into boosted sales for many licensed premises, and the ability to maximise on this without unnecessary regulatory burden is essential.

The taskforce identified a number of areas where licensing of outdoor areas can be improved, and recommends:

• developing best practice guidance or licensing circular (as part of framework in recommendation 1) on how to allow for maximised trading in outside spaces for licensed premises, and thereby support local economic growth
• removing all COVID-related conditions on outdoor trading (could also be delivered via condition ‘amnesty’)
• opening containers: clarify that sale in open container for consumption in a licensed area forming part of the premises licence or a pavement licence is an on sale for purposes of act and conditions
• reviewing other conditions with a view to removal where they unnecessarily restrict growth (again, see recommendation 2)
• ensuring that pavement licences are granted in perpetuity (or at least no shorter than 2 years)
• granting off-sales provision automatically to all licensed premises, at no additional cost – refusal to include should be evidence-based and specific to the business
• greater ability for premises to trade in other outside areas on an interim basis
• reviewing and removing unnecessary restrictions on live music in outside spaces
• resolving inconsistencies (see Annex A) between pavement licence permissions and off-sales permissions
• expanding the use of grants, such as in Liverpool and London, enabling cafes, restaurants to have outside seating and maximise opportunities

While pavement licensing is a separate regime, it is worth highlighting in the context of this wider recommendation as there are clear links between this and Licensing Act outdoor provisions. Issues are already becoming apparent in the new pavement licence regime such as inconsistency of application, with some areas only granting short-term licences as standard (6 months) against guidance recommendations (2 years) and the ‘ownership’ of the pavement licence.

Reason for recommendation

Freeing up the potential for licensed premises to better use their outside spaces to the maximum ability will create growth within the local economy, regenerate high streets and communities, and provide jobs.

As an example, some central London pavement licence conditions include a waiter/waitress service condition. Optimising use of outdoor spaces with simplified, consistent and streamlined procedures has huge growth potential and significant cost efficiencies with minimal risk. Recent figures from a regional brewer/pub operator show that pubs with beer gardens have seen a trade surge by an average of 49% on hot days last month (April 2025). Overall, a conservative estimate of a 1% trading uplift across the sector could be delivered by outdoor easements, this would be worth in region of £25 million extra revenue per year.

Recommendation 6: increase the maximum entitlement for Temporary Event Notices (TENs) for licensed premises

Current requirements

Premises can currently apply for a maximum of 15 TENs in one year, for a total period of 21 days. TENs are a light touch notification process to allow for events or extensions to hours.

Reason for recommendation

Increasing the automatic entitlement for TENs for licensed premises (that is those with existing premises licences) will generate new opportunities for existing businesses. Ideally 25 TENs covering 30 days, but as a minimum, the same level as during COVID that is 21 TENs, for a total period of 26 days per year.

If no substantial, specific evidence is provided by the police or environmental health officers (EHOs), the TEN should be automatically granted with reasonable conditions.

During COVID, there was a temporary easement that allowed 21 TENs per year covering a period of 26 days. There is no evidence that this easement caused any substantial issues during that period. Police stakeholders on the taskforce supported additional TENs for venues already holding an existing premises licence. The extra potential value to on-trade/licensed premises (hospitality) has been estimated at £10 million revenue per year.

Recommendation 7: ‘sunset clause’ on blanket hours policies

Reason for recommendation

Blanket policies such as core hours were not in the original act and had no debate on their introduction when going through Parliament. As such, there are examples of such policies running indefinitely with limited review, or justification based on outdated issues of concern.

The taskforce recommends that where such a policy that restricts certain licensed activities within a specific or local authority area, they should always be time limited, for example only lasting for 3 years, falling away by a specified date, and/or fully consulted on again after a set period with up-to-date evidence and proper engagement. This is to avoid situations where a restrictive policy is put in place to deal with a specific issue, but the policy in effect runs forever or is continually renewed using the original out of date evidence base. As best practice, this should be carried out at any licence review.

Recommendation 8: an abitration, evidence and data protocol for licensing decisions

Reason for recommendation

Issues around evidence and data were identified by the taskforce as a consistent theme around many areas of licensing. This includes robust and fair justification and evidence for requirements to provide evidence to support objections, reviews and recommended conditions. Reviews are extremely costly, for example a sample of approximately 412 reviews costing an estimated £40,000 legal costs per review for operators – £16.4 million – and also impacting the public purse to the same amount or more.

A new protocol could be developed – building on the ongoing partnership working between police, licensing authority, licensing professionals and other stakeholders, facilitated by the Institute of Licensing (IoL) to:

• define clear evidence standards and thresholds, to ensure consistency and transparency in how data and analysis underpin decisions
• provide structured mechanisms for applications and objections enabling affected parties to understand and address concerns or seek amendments to decisions on an informed and equitable basis
• set out comprehensive procedural safeguards, including defined timelines, rights of representation, and access to the evidence informing decisions
• enable the use of conditional or time-limited determinations, based on verifiable evidence and subject to regular review where appropriate
• provide clarity for related areas where these are not clearly set out in the act or secondary legislation

Section 5 of this report outlines the core features to be included in the protocol.

Recommendation 9: festivals and events

Reason for recommendation

There is value in a review of licence length and fees for festivals and removing large event multipliers. The section 182 guidance could be updated to provide clear guidance around discretionary relief and additional advice on licence lengths. Alternatively, legislation could be introduced to provide a standardised route to a perpetual licence (or 5-year minimum) for recurring festivals and events and other licensed activity to support long term investment and operational stability. Enforcement activity is sufficient to address harms should they arise and remove a licence swiftly – but a short licence does not allow for investment, planning and business expansion.

Recommendation 10: make the agent of change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions

Current requirements

In planning and development, the agent of change principle ensures that assignment of responsibility for mitigating noise and other nuisances falls on the new development rather than existing businesses. For example, a new residential development close to an existing licensed premises would be required to take steps to address noise for the residents rather than the onus being placed on the existing licensed premises.

With regards to local authorities’ statements of licensing policy, paragraph 14.67 of the section 182 guidance makes reference to the agent of change principle with regards to planning decisions, as follows:

Where there is an application for planning permission, the National Planning Policy Framework expects new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required by the local planning authority to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

However, while planning authorities are expected to consider this principle when making decisions, there is no similar requirement set out for licensing authorities when considering licensing applications despite the section 182 reference.

The taskforce recommends stronger guidance or a mandatory requirement for licensing authorities to ensure that the agent of change principle is considered when making licensing decisions such as setting conditions on a licence. Stronger links with the planning process to ensure that both elements actively consider the principle when making decisions. This could eventually be written in to planning and licensing law but in the meantime key elements can be delivered via the framework (recommendation 1).

Other considerations identified around agent of change include:

• a music venue should be able to register itself on the planning register, that automatically produces a flag (akin to ‘Conservation Area’) as a planning constraint on the register
• the venue should be automatically notified of planning applications within a set radius
• local officers trained in agent of change are consulted on relevant planning applications
• a national set of standards is produced in planning guidance, including building design and noise attenuation
• hospitality growth hubs or high street hubs which throw a ring around existing use and require a proactive assessment by officers of agent of change impact of development, rather than reactive one in response to business concerns being raised on applications

4. National Licensing Policy Framework – recommended content

Recommendation 1 is to introduce a National Licensing Policy Framework. A wide range of issues were identified by taskforce working groups – a number of which were felt should be included in such a framework as they required no changes to primary or secondary legislation and would improve the efficient and fairness of day-to-day licensing. Given this would deliver against a number of government strategies and objectives, it must be co-owned across Home Office, DBT, DCMS and MHCLG. The areas which we suggest could be delivered by the framework are highlighted.

Wider policy objectives

Requirement to link licensing to economic development and culture policies. Licensing should recognise the economic, cultural, and social value of late-night venues, supporting local recovery, vibrancy, and mental health and wellbeing. This includes enhancing inclusiveness and the local economy, allowing local authorities to balance traditional licensing objectives with wider community benefits. Such a move would address historic inequalities in the licensing of music and entertainment venues, festivals and events.

A recommendation that a specific Night Time Economy strategy be adopted by all local authorities. The original objectives underpinning the Licensing Act should be reflected within the framework, namely (taken from government 2004 guidance):

• more proportionate regulation to give business greater freedom and flexibility to meet their customers’ expectations
• greater choice for consumers, including tourists, about where, when and how they spend their leisure time
• the encouragement of more family-friendly premises where younger children can be free to go with the family
• further development within communities of our rich culture of live music, dancing and theatre, both in rural areas and in our towns and cities
• the regeneration of areas that need the increased investment and employment opportunities that a thriving and safe night-time economy can bring
• the necessary protection of local residents, whose lives can be blighted by disturbance and antisocial behaviour associated with the behaviour of some people visiting places of entertainment

Add ‘necessary and proportionate’ test

Include in framework a requirement that licensing decisions and conditions be ‘necessary and proportionate’. Reintroduce the ‘necessary’ test for licensing decisions and embed proportionality into decision making. An explicit test that any steps taken to achieve the desired outcome, or conditions imposed, are reasonable in terms of costs.

Training – immediate access to foundation apprenticeships

Provision of general guidance and training for licensees, trade, police and licensing officers – including protocols or national guidance built in to the framework on a range of areas like evidential basis, tests and weight of evidence for example proximity test for residents, number and volume versus customer and usage and absence of issues, positive representations, assessing and weighting of evidence and balance, protocol on use of statistics and evidential requirements, IoL to explore training and qualifications for licensing officers – engagement with licensing panels and local schemes (for example the Hope and Glory case makes clear that residents are not the only consideration).

Government is transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills offer and introducing new short courses in priority sectors to give greater flexibility to employers. We recommend that foundation apprenticeships be introduced for the licensed trade sector, which will fill the gap between sector-based work academy placements (SWAPs) and higher-level vocational training. We also recommend that levy funding be used for industry-developed short courses in licensing and digital skills passport induction training (mirroring SWAPs programme) but bringing in licensing components. Not as a mandatory requirement, but an ability to use funds (where available) in this way and ensure courses are approved by industry. We recommend that induction training for front of house, ‘safe and legal’ compliance, is also funded through the Growth and Skills Levy. We also recommend that Skills England creates new apprenticeship training standards for licensing officers, police and councillors where appropriate.

Duplication

There is a requirement under the act not to duplicate existing regimes or upcoming legislation (for example protect duty). The framework can be used as a mechanism to prevent duplication.

Licensing officer powers

Give licensing officers power to make recommendations to committee and for such recommendations to carry the highest weight, and require justification should the committee wish to depart from officer recommendations.

Online portals and forms

The LGA in particular has continued to lobby government to maintain the existing central licensing facility, which is hosted by Government Digital Service and allows businesses to submit alcohol licensing application forms to local councils from GOV.UK. For several years, the Government Digital Service has only committed to hosting this in one-year increments. The taskforce strongly believes central government should commit to hosting a central licensing forms facility in perpetuity to give businesses and councils certainty over the future of this service.

Planning

A better link between the licensing and planning regimes. Guidance says planning has primacy, but the framework could make clear that either licensing or planning committees can consider both areas at the same time to allow one application and consideration and avoid different permissions for the same premises.

Live and recorded music

The position on live and recorded music being deregulated and permitted on most premises including outdoor areas from 8am to 11pm daily is not always forthcoming by the authorities to premises. It is common for operators to receive conflicting advice on having some form of music outdoors and effectively have to set the record straight with all parties involved.

Seasonal hours

Reflect seasonal hours in local licensing policies/licences, opportunities to operate later/earlier at key trading sessions that is Easter or local festivals.

Cultural representation

Promote cultural representation in licensing, for example committees including members with cultural awareness or community ties. Introduce objective, evidence-based licensing risk frameworks, removing genre-based bias. Local councils should develop inclusive cultural frameworks reflecting community demographics. Consultation with independent cultural experts, equality officers, and local business representatives in licensing subcommittees and review panels. Ensure where local areas are using, for example, Black music to brand areas as ‘vibrant’ or ‘diverse’, they cannot at the same time deny late licences or impose unfair restrictions on cultural venues. This limits access to cultural capital while extracting economic value from it and should be rebalanced.

Outdated administration

Where statutory or guidance on deadlines exist, ensure these are being adhered to. The taskforce received evidence of long delays to accept elements such as minor variations or return of licensing documentation. Reasonable deadlines acceptable to all parties should also apply to hearings.

There have been issues identified for premises when they need to change their Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). It needs to be easier and quicker to register changes to DPS, with the possibility to have 2 DPS and tacit consent rather than proactive approval processes.

Lapsed licence

Amend lapsing of premises licence where licence holder has become insolvent, as 28 days still is not long enough as often not picked up by licensing authority until annual fee is due/transfer takes place which then leaves the premises unable to trade until a new licence is applied for.

Change of premises name

Change of premises name needs a quick notification process – this would enable local authorities to easily be notified and updated on change of name to premises as and when they occur, this would speed up any communication (currently not a requirement and hard to find on systems when premises names have changed multiple times since 2005).

Time periods – 28 days consent

Specify a time period in the premises licence regulations (SI 2005/42) and hearings regulations (SI 2005/44) for the notice and reasons to be issued by the licensing authority. This can be compared with the time period for making representations (28 days) specified in regulation 22. As an alternative that if not notified within 28 days there is tacit consent.

Hotels and restaurants

Guidance on hotel licensing and operational differences with resident guests (for example longer hours or 24-hour provisions), review outdated restaurant conditions around alcohol with meal only. For example permissive and presume grant if it was to 1am automatically for hotel bars and remove the restaurant condition as part of amnesty (see main recommendations).

Easier payment

Annual fees for multiple sites in the same area to be paid in one payment and prescribed payment methods (BACS and/or credit card for instance).

Night time economy (NTE) strategies in licensing policies

Require local authorities to create a local NTE strategy, aligning and building on the national strategy. Take examples from currently ongoing partnership work in areas such as West Midlands Combined Authority, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester and the Greater London Authority. Examples include promotion of NTE boards, the appointment of NTE advisers in councils, or regional Offices for Nightlife, inspired by the New South Wales model. Train and meet with licensing committees twice a year, and appoint Nightlife Ambassadors for community-informed policies. Promote national guidance to support a partnership approach for NTE management, raising standards and reducing costs. The government should endorse the partnership charter being developed with stakeholders like the Institute of Licensing and NPCC.

5. Arbitration, evidence and data protocol – recommended content

Initial recommendation 8 is for a national protocol on arbitration, evidence and data use in the licensing system. A wide range of issues were identified by working groups – a number of which were felt should be included in such a protocol and would improve the efficiency and fairness of day-to-day licensing. The areas which could be delivered by the protocol are highlighted.

Add ‘necessary and proportionate’ test

Include in protocol a requirement that licensing decisions and conditions to be ‘necessary and proportionate’. Reintroduce the ‘necessary’ test for licensing decisions and embed proportionality into decision making. Any steps taken to achieve the desired outcome, or conditions imposed, are reasonable in terms of costs and for that to be an explicit test.

Independent arbiter

Consideration to be given to introducing a new principle of arbitration and mediation as part of reviews and appeals where enforcement sanctions are to be applied to operators. Operating within a structured framework regarding quality and appropriateness of evidence, and weighting of representations and proposed interventions to ensure all decisions adhered to clear legal and procedural standards. Mediation is prioritised, and contested hearings may be set aside where parties agree, improving efficiency and reducing legal burdens. For example, currently approximately 412 reviews costing estimated £40,000 legal costs per review for operators (£16.4 million) impacting the public purse to the same amount or more.

In the first instance, ahead of a wider arbitration process for points of intervention in licensing decision processes, consideration to be given to establishing a new principle of arbitration in respect of the review process as a mechanism to sense check or independently review the legality and proportionality of requests for review and conditions to be attached as part of them. This could be through a strengthening of the role, remit and status of licensing officers as independent arbiters with the power to weigh up and make directive recommendations to the committee in respect of reviews and to have that recommendation be a material consideration in review and appeal hearings.

Proximity test

Re-introduce a proximity test for residents/objectors. Example: Tenby South Wales, where the only objector to a licence application was from Birmingham, but an occasional visitor to Tenby (an extreme example).

Objections

Requirements to assess frivolous or vexatious objections and remove ‘benefit of the doubt’.

Improve evidence standards

Objections must be backed by clear, non-discriminatory, and transparent evidence. Minimum evidence threshold for conditions and objections, to achieve more transparency on licensing decisions. Encourage early dialogue: co-designed safety plans between promoters, venues, and police, with community liaisons. Require police, venues and promoters to engage in pre-application discussions. A national form for objections requiring specification of detail as to why and how linked to licensing objectives and crucially how it could be addressed rather than just a simple “I object” from a single objector.

Licensing officers, enforcement

Give licensing officers power to make recommendations to committee against that test and for that to have highest weight to it and require a justification for stepping away from a recommendation. Where councillors take a decision against officer recommendation, or where officers tell them they have no grounds to do so, this should be grounds for immediate and expedited appeal. There is no prescribed form on which to make representations in respect of an application. As a consequence, some responsible authorities (notably the police) submit a representation stating that an application is opposed under all 4 licensing objectives and providing no further detail. No further information is provided until immediately prior to a hearing. This is not only unhelpful but is contrary to the basic principle of fairness.

Review enforcement process and secondary regulations to require specified evidence threshold to be met before commencing contested enforcement activity – to include proximity test for residents, volume and weight of complaints and representations, a requirement for complaints and representations to be justified with specified action or condition to address harm highlighted, requirement to allow contested hearings to be set aside where parties agree, prioritise mediation first. Local licensing policy amendments should be based on clear evidence, including defined timeframes and allow for easy removed if ineffective in practice (outside of statutory timelines). Creating a new arbiter or arbitration point, which could be licensing officer recommendation, as to whether threshold for evidence and action is met.

CCTV

Reiteration and clarification on CCTV not being required unless there is evidence that crime and disorder licensing objective requires it (it is requested too often and for premises unlikely to have crime and disorder or public disorder issues).

6. Licensing Act 2003 – further considerations

Many of the proposals under the National Licensing Policy Framework are designed to cover small scale areas where the act is out of step with common sense custom and practice. However, the taskforce identified a number of considerations around reform of the act itself. When time permits these should be considered, but we recommend using the Licensing Policy Framework and circular vehicle in the first instance.

Licensing fees

Review licensing fees, following wider task force recommendations being taken forward. Any review must also assess fees in the context of the broader industry costs linked to licensing, for example, advertising in local newspapers, multipliers, late night levies and so on.

Extended blanket hours for specific geographical area

Festivals and events decided at local level (at the moment can only be done nationally for example royal events or major sporting events).

Late night levies

Reform the evidential requirements and process, make subject to a sunset clause (only as a wider review of fees). Require an evidential basis to justify imposition or introduction and stepped approach to show what else has been tried first. Evidential base akin to cumulative impact to demonstrate cause and effect.

Early morning restriction orders (EMROs)

Remove EMRO regulations, as they are outdated, have never been used, and undermine a balanced, evidence-based approach to late-night licensing. Their removal would simplify regulation and better support a vibrant night-time economy.

Section 182 guidance

Full comprehensive rewrite of Section 182 to reflect founding principles of act and ensure balance, reference to other policies taken forward as part of this taskforce and also should go through full statutory process and Parliamentary debate.

Agent of change

See relevant recommendation.

Necessary and proportionate

See National Licensing Policy Framework section.

Mandatory conditions

Ensure that the upcoming move to Digital ID is reflected accurately and in good time within the mandatory conditions regulation. Outdated mandatory conditions regarding drinks promotions and similar sit on all licences. Recommended a comprehensive review of promotions as part of the upcoming Digital ID review.

Mayor of London – licensing pilot

The Mayor of London is being given powers to strategically review licensing powers and consider local pilots. In addition to the update to the section 182 guidance, the English Devolution Bill should give the Mayor of London the power to set a strategic licensing policy for London and to grant the mayor call-in powers to make decisions that do not comply with this policy. This legislative change is needed to deliver on the powers promised in the licensing pilot for London.

Digital licensing process

While the Provision of Services Regulation provides for all services to be digital, the Licensing Act and regulations still refer to paper or certified originals and in many instances this is still insisted upon. We propose to eliminate the need for use of paper documents/copies, wet signatures and so on wherever possible. This should be replaced by the acceptability of electronic copies and/or electronically validated authentication. Electronic copies of premises licences should be permitted, where legislation currently dictates certified paper copies. A national set of forms and a national uniform system for lodging applications should be introduced. The GOV.UK digital licensing application portal is widely used and ensures consistency. This was a key finding from Local Authorities in the GLA’s Business Friendly Licensing research project.

Renew and reform cumulative impact areas

See recommendation 7 for full recommendation around use of cumulative impact areas. One of the first elements looked at by businesses when deciding on investment into a premises or local area is whether there is any policy in place in the locality that would make it more difficult to achieve a return on that investment. Cumulative Impact/stress zone policies already have a mechanism for them to be specifically tailored to premises type, however most are blanket blunt instruments. The consultation periods for such policies should be reviewed as per recommendation 7, and workshops/sessions held for business to attend and voice their thoughts to elected members of the local council on the proposals. For transparency any decision to bring in or renew a policy should be accompanied by the responses to that consultation.

Night cafes

Small night cafes could be exempted from regulation by a regulatory reform order, adding a category of exemption under Schedule 2 of the act.

7. Related regimes – further considerations

The work of the taskforce illustrated how many interlinked regimes impact licensed premises, outside of the Licensing Act itself. The taskforce recognises the benefits of future sprint processes in identifying creative solutions to unlocking growth and resolving issues with a cross-Whitehall competence, ownership or where there is a need to mediate between competing considerations in the delivery of government growth mission.

Planning – permitted development

Permitted development rights for de minimis small-scale applications for planning change within existing licensed premises – or a default granted if not objected to within 12 weeks to free up planning resource – can attract an additional fee for processing at speed but small-scale planning changes like planters outside a seated area, A-boards or signage, conversion of upstairs rooms, moving a bar or adding extra kitchen or a small scale extension of trading space or capacity as you have with residential, for example an allowed percentage of trading space added for existing or non-licensed activities with no change to licensing hours. Planning permission can prove problematic for licensing applications – if use of the land has been agreed, licensing have little leeway, only in respect of conditions.

Gaming

Automatic right to 4 Category C machines (currently 2) for licensed premises. Manual payments for gaming notifications/permits. An immediate stake and prize review for Category C machines. These are simple, no cost, pro-growth changes that would enable pubs and other licensed premises to maintain the real value of an important income stream.

Live Music Act

Amend the Live Music Act and subsequent recorded music deregulation. The Live Music Act was introduced on 31 October 2012. Since then, industry trading hours and operating environments have evolved considerably. To reflect this, recorded music and DJ performances were added on 6 April 2015. These changes highlight a significant shift in the trading landscape, creating an opportunity to better support grassroots live music venues and electronic music culture. A legislative reform order could serve as a mechanism to adjust operating hours and venue capacities in line with current economic realities and to strengthen the support for cultural spaces.

Related regimes

A number of separate permissive regimes were discussed as part of the taskforce work. These included taxi licensing, tobacco and vape, outlets, betting shops, sports grounds, Protect Duty and others. There may be merit in applying a similar sprint process to other regimes and behaviours which are licensed and regulated.

One-stop shop

Amalgamated portal or one-stop shop for applying for and managing all permissions. Amalgamate the various licensing requirements and regimes – pavement licence, Highways Act consent (for what is not covered under pavement licence), premises licence and so on. This also presents an opportunity to review licensing fees.

Capital schemes

Capital schemes to help venues improve disabled access and environmental improvements should be rolled out more widely. This should be in line with the example in Liverpool, where post-COVID, Liverpool City Council made small grants available to local independent businesses to provide outside seating and dining facilities and a similar scheme has been proposed by the Mayor of London. Such small-scale grants can have a big impact on the vibrancy of local neighbourhoods and high streets as well as boosting independent businesses and there may be merit in considering their use more widely to support sustainability and inclusivity initiatives.

Recognition by councils

Economic development is not a statutory responsibility of councils, despite business being a ‘customer’ of councils, via business rates. To help councils better support business, recognising the value of local economic development by defining it a statutory service would go a long way to enable councils to support growth.

Annex A: inconsistencies between pavement licence permissions and off-sales permissions

A pub (for example):

• has on-sales permission only on its premises licence
• it abuts a pavement which is not part of the premises
• it has or wants to use a pavement licence to put chairs and tables along the front of the pub on the pavement for customers
• it can get a pavement licence, but technically can’t use it as anyone buying and then taking drinks from the bar to the pavement tables is technically an off-sale and not permitted by the premises licence
• this was where the previous COVID easement was useful, as it allowed licences to have automatic off-sales to prevent this inconsistency between the premises licence permission and pavement licence
• the premises can of course seek to get a variation – which the current guidance says “may be treated as a minor variation” – to add off-sales to their licence to use the pavement licence, but as highlighted in the report there is nothing to say it has to be treated as a minor variation, businesses worried about opening their licence up, cost of a major variation and so on
• this is linked to the point in the report about open containers (that is a pint of beer, open wine bottle, spirit and mixer in a glass) being treated as on-sales if it’s taken to the pavement licence area, which could also resolve the issue

1. Curren Goodden Associates (CGA) by Nielsen IQ. ↩

2. The LGA fed into the taskforce’s work and was broadly supportive of the direction of travel but, in the time available in a sprint, was not able to secure full endorsement of all points but will be glad to contribute to future implementation work and government consultation on the recommendations as they are developed and taken forward. ↩