The House of Commons Library’s latest briefing –  May 2026-  Statistics on alcohol: England, ought to be read with care, not alarmism.

The headline figures are important. In 2024, 76% of adults in England said that they drink alcohol, and 51% reported drinking alcohol within the previous week. At the same time, 21% drank more than the recommended weekly limit of 14 units. The Library also records that both the proportion of people drinking alcohol, and the proportion drinking above the recommended weekly limit, have generally declined over time.

For those of us working in alcohol licensing, premises licence applications and the wider hospitality sector, the message is more subtle than the headlines may suggest.

This is not a story which calls for hostility to hospitality. Nor is it a brief for treating every pub, bar, restaurant, hotel or nightclub as though it were a public health problem waiting to happen.

It is, rather, a case for proportion.

Alcohol remains part of ordinary adult social life in England. But the culture around alcohol consumption has changed. The better operators in the licensed trade have not stood apart from that change. They have helped shape it.

Across the hospitality sector, responsible operators have invested heavily in the systems which sit behind a well-run Premises Licence: staff training, Challenge 25, age verification, refusals logs, incident logs, CCTV, dispersal policies, safeguarding procedures, noise management plans, door supervision where appropriate, and properly drafted licensing conditions.

These are not decorative add-ons. They are the practical machinery by which the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003 are promoted: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.

A well-run licensed premises is a managed environment. Alcohol is served by trained staff. Behaviour can be monitored. Service can be refused. Customers can be supervised. Problems can be recorded, reviewed and addressed.

That is very different from unmanaged drinking in private, in public spaces, or in environments where there is no trained operator, no operating schedule, no responsible authority engagement and no licensing committee scrutiny.

The latest alcohol statistics should therefore prompt a more intelligent debate about alcohol sales in England. The question is not whether alcohol exists. Plainly, it does. The question is whether alcohol is sold, supplied and consumed in environments which are responsible, professional and properly regulated.

On that measure, much of the hospitality industry deserves credit.

Pubs, bars, restaurants, hotels, clubs and late-night venues have had to absorb an ever-growing burden of regulation. They have had to respond to the expectations of licensing authorities, police, environmental health officers, trading standards, public health teams, residents and local councillors.

They have had to do so while facing rising costs, staffing pressures, changing consumer habits and, in many places, increasingly restrictive cumulative impact policies.

Yet the best operators have continued to adapt. They have made responsible alcohol retailing part of ordinary business practice.

It would be wrong, of course, to ignore alcohol-related harm. The same Commons Library briefing records 339,916 alcohol-specific hospital admissions in England in 2023/24, and 147,713 adult clients in alcohol-related treatment in 2024/25. Those are serious figures, and they deserve serious attention.

But serious attention is not the same as indiscriminate blame.

Indeed, the Government’s own section 182 guidance recognises that licence holders have responsibilities for the safety of those using their premises under the 2003 Act, while also drawing an important distinction between immediate public safety matters and wider public health issues, which are addressed elsewhere.

That distinction matters.

The Licensing Act 2003 is not a general public health statute. It is a licensing regime concerned with the promotion of defined licensing objectives. The proper task of licensing authorities is therefore not to punish hospitality for the existence of alcohol, but to assess whether a particular premises, with a particular operating schedule and particular conditions, can operate responsibly.

That is where good licensing still matters.

A responsible operator should not be treated in the same way as a careless one. A carefully conditioned premises licence should not be treated as though it were an invitation to disorder. A restaurant, hotel bar, theatre, pub or well-managed late-night venue should not be judged by the worst examples of alcohol misuse elsewhere.

The better conclusion from the latest alcohol statistics is this: England has not stopped drinking, but the culture of drinking has changed. There is now a stronger emphasis on moderation, food-led hospitality, experience, atmosphere, supervision and responsible management.

That is not a failure of the hospitality sector. It is, in many respects, one of its quiet achievements.

Good licensing is not anti-alcohol. It is anti-irresponsibility.

And well-run hospitality is not the problem to be solved. Very often, it is where the solution begins.

It is sometimes said, usually with a certain finality, that a new nightclub licence in London cannot be granted within a cumulative impact area. The proposition is repeated often enough to acquire the status of received wisdom. It is, however, not correct.

The recent grant of a new premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for Peckham Palais, situated within Southwark’s Rye Lane Cumulative Impact Area, provides a useful reminder of what the statutory framework in fact requires. The policy creates a presumption against grant. It does not impose a prohibition.

The distinction, though subtle, is critical.

For operators and developers seeking a premises licence in London, particularly within a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), the task is not simply to demonstrate that a venue is well designed or commercially attractive. The question is whether the operation, as proposed, will avoid adding to the cumulative problems already identified—typically crime and disorder, public nuisance, and late-night dispersal pressures.

That shift in focus alters the entire approach to a nightclub licence application.

In the case of Peckham Palais, the process extended over the better part of a year, beginning with the planning phase and continuing through to the licensing application. During that period, engagement with the responsible authorities,most notably the Metropolitan Police, Environmental Protection, Health and Safety, and the licensing authority, was both sustained and constructive.

Three elements proved decisive.

First, early engagement with responsible authorities. Successful applications within a cumulative impact area are rarely achieved through a single hearing. They are built over time, through discussion, revision and evidence.

Secondly, a detailed operating model, including noise control conditions, dispersal strategy, queue management and security provision. These are not peripheral matters but central to demonstrating compliance with the licensing objectives.

Thirdly, integration with planning and acoustic design. The premises was developed as a multi-layered venue: a technologically advanced basement music space, supported by hospitality areas and upper-floor uses. Acoustic treatment and operational controls ensured that the venue could operate without causing public nuisance.

From a development perspective, the lesson is clear. A Licensing Act 2003 strategy must sit alongside planning, architecture and acoustics from the outset. Where those disciplines are aligned, even sites within Southwark’s cumulative impact policy areas can support viable and responsible night-time venues.

It is also right to acknowledge the role of the responsible authorities. The licensing regime works best not as a battleground, but as a structured process of engagement aimed at achieving practical and enforceable outcomes.

In a climate where London’s night-time economy continues to face pressure, the Rye Lane decision demonstrates that well-prepared nightclub licence applications can still succeed in cumulative impact areas, provided they are grounded in evidence, shaped by engagement, and supported by robust operational controls.

If you are considering a premises licence application in London, particularly within a cumulative impact area, early advice is essential. We regularly advise operators and developers on Licensing Act 2003 strategy, planning integration and negotiation with responsible authorities. Give us a call or drop me an email here  gareth.hughes@keystonelaw.co.uk

Officers, Police, and the Quiet Machinery of Competence

Licensing only works because of people who do the unglamorous work well.

I want to pay tribute to Robert Breese, Aggie Minas, Andre Hewitt, and colleagues across licensing, environmental health, fire, and the City of London Police.

The City Police are unique — not only because they guard gold and investigate fraud, but because they understand premises, context, and proportion.

That shared professional culture is rare. And it shows.

The Croquembouche of Licensing Policy – Reforms to  the regime under the Licensing Act 2003

Licensing law today resembles a croquembouche , that elegant French tower of profiteroles.

At the base, the Licensing Act 2003.
Above it, section 182 guidance.
Then local licensing policy statements.

A pyramid, certainly,  but a manageable one.

What the City has done, quietly and sensibly, is encourage resolution before application.

Talk early.
Solve problems early.
Avoid unnecessary conflict.

So many City applications are resolved without ever being submitted — a level of efficiency which, in most other boroughs, would be treated with immediate suspicion.

A Short Detour into Licensing History

Whenever we talk about reform, it is worth remembering where licensing law actually began.

One of my favourite pieces of legislation in this field is the Disorderly Houses Act of 1751, an Act which, astonishingly, survived until 2008.

I won’t read it all, but I do want to read you just the opening lines, because they tell you everything you need to know about how Parliament once viewed entertainment.

“Whereas the multitude of places of entertainment for the lower sort of people is another great cause of thefts and robberies…”

“…as they are thereby tempted to spend their small substance in riotous pleasures…”

“…and in consequence are put on unlawful methods of supplying their wants…”

“…and of renewing their pleasures.”

That, ladies and gentlemen, was Parliament’s considered view of dancing.

The concern was not noise.
Not nuisance.
Not cumulative impact.

The concern was that music and dancing might lead directly to idleness, theft, robbery, and the general moral collapse of the kingdom.

And the solution was admirably straightforward.

Four justices.
In open court.
Licence read aloud.
And if you didn’t have one, a constable could enter, seize everyone present, and deal with them according to law.

All very proportionate.

Parliament, at least, was honest.

They didn’t talk about streamlining, or simplification, or improving the customer journey.

They simply said: we don’t trust people to dance.

Why Government Feels the Need to “Help”

Before I turn to licensing reform itself, it is only fair to acknowledge why Government is reaching for it.

Ministers want to be seen to offer a helping hand, because at the same time, the hospitality sector is under pressures the likes of which it has rarely seen.

Put bluntly, the Government taketh away with one hand, and giveth with the other and the giving hand is sometimes the smaller of the two.

The industry’s trade body, UKHospitality, has estimated that a cluster of measures landing in the same period amounts to over £3 billion a year in additional costs for the sector.

That includes around £1 billion from changes to employer National Insurance alone, translating into around £2,500 extra per full-time employee, for pubs and restaurants already operating on wafer-thin margins.

Then there is business rates.

With pandemic relief unwound and revaluation effects kicking in, some smaller pubs have seen their rates bills rise by several hundred per cent, and UKHospitality has warned that the average pub could be paying tens of thousands of pounds more over the next few years than it did during the relief period.

Closures are the quiet backdrop to all of this.

Industry figures suggest pubs are still closing at a rate of around eight a week across England and Wales, not in dramatic collapses, but in a steady drip that changes high streets and communities almost unnoticed.

Layer onto that the Employment Rights Bill.

Much of it is well-intentioned. But it lands hardest in sectors like hospitality that rely on flexibility, late hours, and young people taking their very first job.

Employers are being asked to manage new duties around workplace conduct, sometimes caricatured in the press as a “banter ban”, in environments that are social, informal, and fast-moving by nature.

So when Ministers speak about simplifying and streamlining licensing, part of what they mean is this:

we have made trading harder in many other ways, and we now want to be seen to make something easier.

Which brings me neatly to reform, and to Ronald Reagan’s nine words.

Licensing Reform and the Risk of Bureaucracy

There is a famous warning from Ronald Reagan, who once said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are:
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

I wouldn’t go quite that far,  but what we are now seeing is a nascent piling-up of bureaucracy from the centre, with a real risk that local judgment begins to be displaced.

The Government’s review of licensing law and procedure, concluding at the end of 2025, starts from understandable concerns: inconsistency, delay, complexity, and unpredictability.

Out of it have come familiar themes:
greater front-loading,
earlier engagement,
clearer frameworks,
and a drive for consistency.

All of that is defensible.

But the pyramid is becoming steeper.

The Licensing Act still anchors the system.
But now we see a proposed National Licensing Policy Framework alongside section 182 guidance.
In London, the Mayor’s licensing strategy sits above local policy statements.
And above all of that, a call-in power coming down the track, removing strategic applications from local decision-makers altogether.

Taken together, the risk is not reform.

It is hierarchy.

That discretion gives way to templates.
That judgment gives way to compliance.

And if we add many more layers of policy, I can only assume the croquembouche will require structural engineering consent!! ……

Gareth Hughes – Licensing and Planning Lawyer, London

At a recent discussion with Tony Matharu of the Central London Alliance, we examined the current regulatory climate facing hospitality operators across the City of London and Greater London.

Although recorded at the end of last year, the themes remain highly relevant in 2026.

In Central London, successful hospitality businesses now depend upon a clear and integrated strategy under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Town and Country Planning regime. The two systems may be legally distinct, but commercially they are inseparable.

The Licensing Act 2003: The Core Legal Framework for Hospitality

The Licensing Act 2003 remains the principal statute governing:

• Premises licences
• Variation applications
• Licence reviews
• Temporary Event Notices (TENs)
• Late-night refreshment
• Regulated entertainment

Across London boroughs — including Westminster, Camden, Southwark, Lambeth and the City of London — the Act is applied within detailed local Statements of Licensing Policy.

Under the Licensing Act 2003, licensing authorities must promote the four licensing objectives:

1. Prevention of crime and disorder
2. Public safety
3. Prevention of public nuisance
4. Protection of children from harm

In practice, the majority of contested applications in Central London turn on the prevention of public nuisance and crime and disorder — particularly in cumulative impact areas.

Cumulative Impact Policies Under the Licensing Act 2003

Section 5A of the Licensing Act 2003 permits licensing authorities to adopt Cumulative Impact Policies (CIPs).

Large parts of Central London, including the West End and areas within the City, operate under such policies.

Where a CIP applies:

• There is often a rebuttable presumption of refusal.
• The evidential burden effectively shifts to the applicant.
• Applications must demonstrate that they will not add to cumulative impact.

This makes early legal and strategic advice essential.

A poorly prepared premises licence application in a cumulative impact zone can result in refusal, delay, reputational damage and substantial cost.

Planning Permission and the Licensing Act 2003: Why Strategy Must Be Integrated

Although the Licensing Act 2003 is legally separate from planning law, the practical overlap is significant.

Planning committees frequently impose conditions relating to:

• Hours of operation
• Capacity limits
• Noise mitigation
• Servicing arrangements
• External seating

Licensing committees, meanwhile, scrutinise many of the same operational elements through the lens of the licensing objectives.

If planning and Licensing Act 2003 strategy are not aligned from the outset, operators may face:

• Inconsistent permitted hours
• Conflicting capacity restrictions
• Operational inefficiencies
• Costly variation applications
• Appeal proceedings in the magistrates’ court

For Central London operators, an integrated approach is no longer optional.

Licensing Applications in the City of London and Greater London

The regulatory climate in the City of London has evolved significantly in recent years.

There is:

• Greater residential presence
• Increased scrutiny of public nuisance issues
• A stronger emphasis on acoustic evidence
• Detailed dispersal and management plan requirements

Across Greater London, licensing committees have become more evidence-led and policy-focused in their decision-making under the Licensing Act 2003.

Applicants should expect careful examination of:

• Capacity modelling
• Sound limiter calibration
• Dispersal policies
• Door supervision arrangements
• Resident engagement

The era of generic, template-based applications is over.

Licence Reviews and Enforcement Under the Licensing Act 2003

It is also important to remember that the Licensing Act 2003 is not concerned solely with grant.

Licence reviews can be triggered by:

• Police
• Environmental Health
• Trading Standards
• Local residents

Sanctions may include:

• Modification of conditions
• Suspension of the licence
• Revocation

For operators, compliance and proactive management are therefore as important as securing the initial grant.

Why Early Advice Under the Licensing Act 2003 Protects Commercial Value

For investors, developers and operators in Central London, a premises licence granted under the Licensing Act 2003 is a commercial asset.

Its terms affect:

• Rental value
• Investment attractiveness
• Operational flexibility
• Exit strategy

Strategic advice at the acquisition or development stage can prevent later regulatory conflict and protect long-term value.

Listen to the Podcast Discussion

In my conversation with Tony Matharu, we explored:

• The future of the Licensing Act 2003 in Central London
• The practical effect of cumulative impact policies
• The interaction between planning and licensing
• The regulatory pressures facing the hospitality sector

Frequently Asked Questions: Licensing Act 2003 in London

What is the Licensing Act 2003?

The Licensing Act 2003 is the primary legislation regulating alcohol sales, late-night refreshment and regulated entertainment in England and Wales.

Do I need planning permission as well as a premises licence?

Yes. Planning permission and a premises licence operate separately. Both may be required before trading begins.

What is a cumulative impact zone (CIZ)?

A cumulative impact zone is an area identified by a licensing authority where the concentration of licensed premises is considered to be causing problems. Applications in such areas face increased scrutiny.

Can a premises licence be appealed?

Yes. Decisions under the Licensing Act 2003 may be appealed to the magistrates’ court.

Licensing and Planning Advice in Central London

If you are seeking advice on:

• A new premises licence
• A licence variation
• A review hearing
• A cumulative impact application
• Planning and licensing alignment

There is a quality of continental life that one feels immediately upon stepping into Milan, Paris, or Madrid: the ease with which outdoor tables and chairs inhabit the pavement. They are not an adjunct, still less a tolerated intrusion, but an accepted part of the civic fabric. They contribute to the city’s rhythm, providing atmosphere, commerce, and community without ever appearing to need justification.

London, though increasingly vibrant, remains hesitant. The pavement licensing regime, a necessary adjunct to the Licensing Act 2003, introduced during the pandemic and hailed as a lifeline for hospitality, has too often become a tangle of bureaucracy. What was intended as facilitation has drifted into deterrence.

The Regime’s Shortcomings

– Short-termism: Licences are commonly granted for a year or less, requiring constant renewal and creating uncertainty for operators who would otherwise invest in outdoor space.

– Inconsistency: Boroughs adopt divergent approaches. In one, the process may be swift; in another, labyrinthine. The absence of uniformity undermines confidence and fairness.

– Presumption against: Too often, the underlying cultural attitude is suspicion. Applications are treated as intrusions to be justified rather than contributions to be welcomed.

The effect is cumulative: operators weary of the process, investment held back, and the public deprived of what should be a natural enhancement to city life. Dickens, with his unerring eye for irony, might have observed that “the law is a ass” when it suppresses precisely what it purports to regulate.

The Missed Opportunity
Outdoor terraces are more than commercial amenities. They are social spaces that enliven streets, increase footfall, and encourage the kind of casual sociability that modern cities so badly need. In Milan, they are as uncontroversial as lampposts. In London, they remain precarious – a privilege rather than a presumption.

None of this is to suggest that safety, accessibility, or the interests of residents should be neglected. Pedestrian routes must remain clear; noise must be managed; balance is essential. But the starting point should be one of encouragement, not grudging toleration.

A Call for Change
If London aspires to retain its reputation as a world city, it must recast its policy. Outdoor seating should be administered with clarity, consistency, and conviction. Licensing should not be a brake on civic life but a means of enabling it.

Milan shows us what is possible: a cityscape where outdoor hospitality is natural, unforced, and woven into the character of the streets. London must ask itself a simple question: will it remain a place where a street terrace feels like an indulgence precariously granted, or will it embrace them as the civilised necessity they are?

In Practice
Those who work daily with the regime know the reality: applications can be contested, renewals uncertain, objections unpredictable. The skill lies in navigating a system that was intended to encourage but too often discourages. Done well, the process can transform an apparent regulatory burden into a practical opportunity.

By Gareth Hughes – Barrister and Licensing and Planning Consultant

The first time I heard the phrase “Agent of Change many moons ago, it brought to mind the sort of mysterious operative who appears in a John le Carré novel – an unseen hand rearranging the pieces of a complex puzzle. But in truth, the Agent of Change principle  – though newer to the statute books – has nothing to do with espionage, and everything to do with a more quotidian, yet equally fraught, battleground: the meeting point between culture and commerce, between music and sleep, between an audience’s applause and a neighbour’s complaint.

It is a principle with noble aims, born from a desire to protect our cultural institutions – music venues, theatres, pubs, nightclubs – from the slow suffocation of encroaching development. And yet, it is not a panacea. Too often, operators – having heard the term – assume it grants immunity from the trials and tribulations of noise complaints, licensing reviews, or civil actions. It does not. My purpose here is to offer a realistic, practitioner-level account of what the principle does, what it cannot do, and – most importantly – how to wield it to best effect.

The firing gun which initiated my further and  latest thinking on this one was the proposal contained in the recent Government’s sprint on licensing policy contained here – Licensing policy sprint: joint industry and HM government taskforce report – GOV.UK  – and particularly in this instant the following heading  – “Recommendation 10: make the agent of change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions”.   Hoorah! – at long last thought I – after all these years of hammering on about this. However, after the initial excitement has worn off, one begins to burrow down into the practicalities of it all and the thoughts I have set out below start edging there way to the forefront of one’s thinking. Its an excellent recommendation of course but its not a panacea and will require practitioners and operators to remain firmly on the ball as much as they should be now.  My thoughts run as follows and are by no means exclusive:

I. Origins and Nature of the Principle

The Agent of Change principle is deceptively simple: the party responsible for introducing a change into the environment should bear the cost of managing its impact. Thus, if a developer builds flats next to an established live-music venue, it is the developer’s responsibility – not the venue’s – to ensure residents are protected from noise.

In planning terms, this is now embedded in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and various local development plans. It is a recognition of what had, for too long, been a Kafkaesque absurdity: a theatre or club, having operated lawfully for decades, suddenly faced with enforcement because newcomers  – drawn, ironically, by the vibrancy that such venues bring – found the very sound of that vibrancy intolerable. I am often take back to an oft quoted example of my own and a case in which I was involved  –  that of the Ministry of Sound which operated its iconic venue for the best part of 25 years just around the corner from the Elephant and Castle, before a developer determined on the site right opposite the MOS entrance to construct a tower block for several hundred residents. No agent of change principle in planning in those days and lead to extreme concerns on the part of the MOS team who had run the premises without complaint for quarter of a century. We could have done with it them in both planning and licensing.

The principle is therefore one of fairness. But fairness in planning does not always equate to safety in law. For the practitioner, the phrase Agent of Change is not a shield of invincibility; it is, at best, a well-wrought breastplate, capable of turning some arrows but by no means all.

II. The Silo Problem

One of the most common misconceptions is that protection in planning equates to protection in licensing – or in civil law. It does not. Planning, licensing, and nuisance law are separate silos. Success in one does not guarantee sanctuary in another.

Consider: a planning condition may require a developer to install high-spec acoustic insulation. That condition may be discharged, signed off, and archived. Yet if, post-occupation, residents complain of noise, Environmental Health can investigate, and a licensing review can still be triggered. A civil claimant, alleging private nuisance, is not bound by the planning decision. The Agent of Change principle may inform the argument – it may even persuade – but it does not compel a licensing sub-committee or court to your side.

III. Vigilance: The Operator’s Best Defence

If the principle offers no automatic salvation, what then is the practical value? The answer lies in proactivity. Those who operate venues must not only understand the principle, but also act early, document thoroughly, and maintain relationships astutely.

1. Engage Early with Planning Applications

The seeds of most disputes are sown long before the first complaint is made. By the time a residential block has been completed, occupied, and the first letter of complaint sent, the die is largely cast.

The prudent operator therefore keeps a watching brief on local planning portals. It is astonishing how many do not. New residential developments – particularly those within the acoustic reach of your premises – should trigger immediate scrutiny. Representations to the planning authority should be made early, robustly, and with evidence. It was uplifting to see that one of the proposals in the “sprint” is that a music venue should be able to register itself on the planning register and that this would  automatically produce a flag as a planning constraint on the register. A further proposal is that the venue should be automatically notified of planning applications within a set radius should it be registered. Nevertheless even this is not an excuse for not remaining vigilant.

This is the moment to press for explicit planning conditions: measurable acoustic performance standards, post-completion testing, and -critically -recognition of your venue’s established use.

2. Insist on Precision in Conditions

Loose planning conditions are the developer’s friend. A vague requirement to ‘install adequate soundproofing’ is, in practice, almost unenforceable. In contrast, a condition specifying ‘sound insulation to achieve a minimum of 45 dB DnT,w + Ctr’ is a yardstick against which compliance can be tested.

Moreover, it is wise to request a planning condition that your venue be consulted during the construction and sign-off process. This not only keeps you informed but allows you to raise concerns before problems become entrenched.

3. Maintain and Improve Your Own House

The Agent of Change principle is no excuse for complacency. Venues should continue to invest in sound management: upgrading insulation, optimizing speaker placement, and – where necessary – installing limiters.

Equally, relations with neighbours, old and new, should be nurtured. A quarterly meeting with local residents, a mobile number for direct contact, a visible willingness to resolve concerns – these do not merely mollify; they create a narrative of reasonableness. In a licensing review, that narrative is invaluable.

IV. When the Knock Comes: Licensing Reviews

Even the most meticulous operator may face a licensing review. Perhaps a new residential block has been occupied and the first wave of complaints has begun. Here, Agent of Change can be deployed as part of a carefully constructed argument:

1. Documented History – Evidence of your existing use, trading hours, and noise mitigation.
2. Planning Background – The fact that conditions were imposed on the developer specifically to address noise.
3. Policy References – Local plan policies and national guidance embedding the Agent of Change principle.
4. Compliance Record – Correspondence with Environmental Health showing past co-operation.

But a note of caution: licensing committees are not bound to follow planning logic. Their remit is the promotion of the licensing objectives, and noise nuisance falls squarely within ‘prevention of public nuisance.’ Your task is to demonstrate that the nuisance alleged is either unfounded, already mitigated, or one the developer was obliged to prevent.

V. The Civil Law Dimension: Private Nuisance

Private nuisance claims – whether brought by a resident or a body corporate – are notoriously unpredictable. Courts are tasked with balancing the claimant’s right to quiet enjoyment against your right to carry on a lawful business.

An Agent of Change defence may be persuasive but will not be determinative. Courts will examine whether you have taken reasonable steps to mitigate noise. Expert acoustic evidence is essential – ideally showing that your venue operates within agreed or industry norms, and that any residual noise is within tolerable limits for the area.

Before litigation, consider negotiation. Courts expect it. Mediation or structured compromise -adjusting hours, altering bass frequencies, contributing to window upgrades -may save both sides from the cost and uncertainty of trial.

VI. The Role of Local Authority Relationships

In my experience, the venues that survive – indeed, thrive – under the new planning-licensing landscape are those with cultivated relationships within their local authority.

Environmental Health officers, licensing teams, and even planning officers can be allies if treated as such. Share your noise management plans, invite them for site visits, keep them informed of upcoming events likely to raise noise levels. Such courtesies often pay dividends when tensions arise. I cannot emphasize this point enough!

VII. Monitoring the Legal Landscape

The Agent of Change principle is still bedding in. Case law is sparse but growing. Operators should monitor both national developments and local policy reviews. Engage with consultations – both governmental and local authority. This is not mere civic duty; it is self-interest of the most practical kind. Policies are shaped by those who speak up.

VIII. Insurance: An Overlooked Safety Net

A handful of specialist insurers now offer cover for legal costs arising from noise disputes or licensing reviews. For venues at heightened risk – those in densely populated areas, or with a history of complaints – such cover can be the difference between survival and closure. As with all insurance, the devil is in the detail; ensure cover extends to both regulatory proceedings and civil claims.

IX. Record-Keeping: The Unheralded Hero

Finally, record-keeping. The operator who can produce contemporaneous notes of noise checks, resident communications, and meetings with council officers is already halfway to a persuasive defence. These records transform anecdote into evidence. Don’t leave your incident books gathering dust on your offices shelves –  keep them as living documents.

A simple diary – paper or digital – recording the date, time, and nature of checks, complaints, and remedial actions can, in a hearing, be worth more than the most eloquent submission.

X. A Word on Perspective

In Dickens’s Bleak House, the interminable case of Jarndyce v Jarndyce serves as a cautionary tale about the law’s ability to devour its own. The Agent of Change principle, while well-intentioned, has the potential – if misunderstood – to become another such arena of attrition. The wise operator will not rely on it as a solitary bulwark, but as part of a layered defence: planning vigilance, operational excellence, neighbourly diplomacy, and legal preparedness.

Conclusion

The Agent of Change principle is a welcome development for the protection of established venues. It restores a measure of fairness to a process that had, for too long, favoured the newcomer over the incumbent. But it is not a magic spell. It will not prevent all complaints, nor will it immunise you from regulatory or civil sanction.

Its real power lies in the hands of those who understand its limits, act before problems arise, and present themselves as reasonable custodians of their trade. In that sense, the true ‘agent of change’ is not the policy itself, but the operator who adapts, anticipates, and engages.

August 2025

By Gareth Hughes – Barrister – Keystone Law

I. Introduction

It is a truth — not quite universally acknowledged, but murmured in the corridors of every licensing practitioner’s offices— that government intervention seldom stops where it says it will. 

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, currently winding its way through Parliament, is no exception. Presented under the banner of “protecting the next generation,” this ambitious piece of legislation promises nothing less than the total transformation of how tobacco and vape products are sold in England and Wales.

What begins as public health concern ends — as such matters often do — in a licensing regime. And for those in the business of hospitality, retail, or the regulation thereof, the implications are considerable.

The Bill does three main things and each of them are seismic (there are other parts of the Bill relating to notices and advertising (which I do not proposes to deal with in this short article)

1. It establishes a licensing scheme for tobacco and vape retailers and wholesalers.

2. It prohibits the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 — not just until they come of age, but forever.

3. It arms local authorities and trading standards officers with sweeping powers of inspection, enforcement, and prohibition.

As with the Licensing Act 2003, what began as an effort to civilise a market may well encumber it — with bureaucracy, inconsistency, and legal uncertainty. And so we turn to the Bill with a lawyer’s eye and a citizen’s suspicion, to ask not only what it says, but what it means for the real world of retail tills, vape shops, late-night venues, and licensed premises.

II. The Licensing Regime: A New Architecture of Control

It is, perhaps, an irony worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby that while one part of the government declares an intent to “free up” business from bureaucratic tangles, another quietly knits a new net. The licensing regime proposed by the Tobacco and Vapes Bill marks the most substantial intervention in the sale of tobacco products since the early 2000s.

At the heart of  the proposal lies a simple idea: only licensed persons may sell tobacco or vape products, whether retail or wholesale, and any such licence may be granted, suspended or revoked by a yet-to-be-named authority, most likely a local licensing authority or a magistrates court.

Although the detail has been largely deferred to secondary legislation of which no draft as yet appeared — a legislative habit that would make even Dickens’s Mr. Bumble grumble — we are told to expect:

– Eligibility criteria, likely to include background checks and tax compliance;

– Ongoing obligations, including record-keeping and staff training;

– Fees, not insignificant, and potentially scaled by turnover or sales volume;

– And crucially, enforcement mechanisms, including criminal sanctions for breach.

This is a licensing regime in the full sense of the Licensing Act 2003 — with all the attendant compliance risk and liability. One imagines a day not too far distant when Westminster’s model conditions will include, alongside door staff and CCTV, a requirement that “no sale of tobacco or nicotine product shall take place save by or under the authority of a person holding a valid retail licence.”

III. The Generational Ban: A Ratcheting Prohibition

The so-called “generational ban” on tobacco sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009 — a date whose surreal specificity feels almost satirical — is another bold stroke. If enacted, it would make the UK the first country in the world to legislate a permanent, incrementally expanding cohort of adults who may never legally buy tobacco.

To be plain: an 18-year-old in 2026 could lawfully purchase cigarettes. A 17-year-old born a few months later could not — not in 2027, not in 2037, not ever.

The enforcement of this policy becomes a practical labyrinth. Underage sales enforcement is familiar territory — but now, age itself is no longer the determinant. Instead, staff must check year of birth. No longer is it enough to train to “Challenge 25”; businesses must now train to challenge 2009!

The government has floated the idea of a digital age-verification tool or mandatory signage, but these are band-aids on a wound of legislative complexity. One wonders — as Coward might have said — whether the well-intentioned bureaucrat who proposed this ever actually tried to run a till on a Friday night in a convenience store in Hackney.

IV. Implications for Retail and Hospitality

For the hospitality and retail sectors, the Bill’s consequences are multifaceted:

– Hospitality venues that stock cigars or allow smoking in outdoor areas may be drawn into the licensing regime although the government has now made it relatively clear that beer gardens will not be subject to the smoke free places provisions

– Retailers will face licensing costs, compliance burdens, and enforcement risk, especially across boroughs with divergent interpretations.

– Staff training and internal policies will need updating, especially around ID checks and signage.

What matters most is certainty — and at present, the Bill gives us precious little of it.

V. Enforcement and Local Authority Powers

Trading standards officers are to be given enhanced powers — including entry, inspection, seizure and the right to issue prohibition notices and fixed penalties. These are quasi-criminal powers, often wielded with scant oversight.

The appeal mechanisms, though hinted at, are undefined. And the lack of judicial oversight or independent review is troubling. In effect, we are empowering borough officers to make decisions with criminal and commercial consequences, in real time, with little  accountability.

VI. Concluding Observations

If the Licensing Act 2003 marked the domestication of alcohol through regulation, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill may herald the beginning of the end for commercial tobacco sales in England and Wales.

And yet, for all its ambition, it raises more questions than it answers. What is the long-term intent? A smoke-free generation, or the slow suffocation of the sector? Will enforcement be fair, or fragmented? And will the courts — when they are finally invited in — find these provisions proportionate, rational, and lawful?

The prudent operator will prepare now. The prudent adviser will read every clause. And the prudent government, if there is such a thing, will remember that in regulating markets, it also regulates lives.

As lawyers, we do not pass judgment on policy. But as practitioners, we must ensure that those caught in the tangle of its language are not — like Kafka’s Josef K — punished without knowing the charge.

A very long day in front of the Westminster licensing committee two weeks ago defending some great clients faced with a review of their premises licence at the best Persian restaurant in London – Naroon of Marylebone one of the most fashionable areas of the city. We put together a crack team featuring Reza Rezamalekzadeh and Mohammad Malekzadeh the owners, Dave Nevitt as our wise expert and the magnificent James Anderson of Poppleston Allen and of course yours truly !!!

It was a very long hearing and we took this selfie at the end of the day. The review was heard fairly by the committee and despite the best efforts of some local residents to close the restaurant down we came away with a stronger premises licence than what we had when we went in and outdoors dining until 22:00 with all other hours untouched. Thanks to all the team and I highly recommend you visit this fine establishment for the most delicious Persian food around. Family run for local families as well with my clients living in Marylebone. A splendid result!

This is the text of a letter I have sent this week – 31st March 2025 to the House of Lords setting our my difficulties with regard to the Employment Rights Bill and the proposed amendments to the Equality Acy 2010 and the impact this will have on premises  licence holders under the Licensing Act 2003. Do give me a call if you require further advice on how these provisions will affect your premises if they become law.

Dear Lord Offord of Garvel

Say No to Banter Bouncers

I’m writing to express my grave misgivings about clause 20 of the Employment Rights Bill.

Clause 20 amends section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 to impose a legal duty on employers to “take all reasonable steps” to prevent their employees being “harassed” by third parties, meaning they could be sued by their employees in the Employment Tribunal if they don’t do enough.

That may sound reasonable, but the Worker Protection Act 2024 already extends employers’ liability under the Equality Act for third party sexual harassment and of course any form of physical assault is a crime, so the ‘harassment’ we’re talking about here is verbal. Among other things, it will include conversations between customers or members of the public that are overheard by employees – not directed at them – and which they find offensive in virtue of one or more ‘protected’ characteristic. Not just their own, mind you. Under this new law, employees will be able to take offence on behalf of one of their colleagues. Given that we live in an age in which some are hyper-sensitive, the implications for the hospitality sector of turbo-charging the Equality Act in this way are mind-boggling.

What “reasonable steps” will a publican be expected to take to protect his or her staff from overhearing conversations between customers that might upset them? Will it be sufficient to include a notice on the wall warning customers to keep their opinions to themselves on issues like trans rights, mass immigration and the Israel-Palestine conflict? Or will publicans need to go further and employ ‘banter bouncers’ to eavesdrop on customers and eject anyone for saying something ‘inappropriate’ or ‘problematic’, such as telling a dirty joke?

It seems extraordinary that this government, which claims to be ‘pro-growth’, is about to impose additional compliance costs on a sector that’s already on its knees. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, 37 pubs close every week in Britain. There’s little doubt that this new law will accelerate that rate of closure – and those that remain will be sanitized ‘safe spaces’ in which no one dares express a controversial opinion or tell a joke.

But it isn’t just pubs. In football stadiums, it’s not unusual for fans to shout “Are you blind?” at the linesman for failing to rule a goal offside or spot a handball. Once this new law is on the books, a partially sighted steward who overhears this could sue the club for not taking “all reasonable steps” to protect him from being ‘harassed’ in this way. That, in turn, means that clubs will have to clamp down on any expostulations or chants that might cause offence. After that, it won’t just be Sir Keir Starmer’s beloved Arsenal stadium that’s a library!

The same goes for bars, restaurants and hotels. If a feminist walks into a hotel lobby wearing a t-shirt saying “Woman = Adult Human Female”, chances are she’ll be shown the door lest the slogan offends a trans or non-binary member of the hotel’s staff.

Expecting employers to police the speech of their customers in this way will have a hugely chilling effect on free speech. The same fearful atmosphere that prevails in so many workplaces since the passing of the Equality Act, with people looking over their shoulders before whispering what they really think about a controversial issue, will be extended to the venues people go to in their leisure time. The era when people could relax in the speakeasy atmosphere of their local will be at an end.

Clause 20 will also have a chilling effect on free speech on campus. At present, external speakers cannot be no-platformed by universities on the grounds that their mere presence will upset a member of staff with one or more protected characteristics because employers aren’t liable for third-party harassment. Once this new law is on the books, that will be a legitimate reason to no-platform a speaker like Kathleen Stock or Helen Joyce – and woke activists will have a field day.

In the Commons, the Opposition tabled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill disapplying clause 20 in its entirety and another excluding pubs, sports and hospitality venues from its impact, but not a single Labour or Lib Dem MP voted for either. Amending the Bill in the House of Lords is our last chance to stop this attempt to ramp up the policing of speech outside the workplace.

Even if you don’t share my free speech concerns, please consider the cost of complying with this new layer of red tape. The government has estimated the compliance cost for large/medium business will be £30 and for small businesses £19 – a ludicrous under-estimate. Just think about what clause 20 will mean for struggling hospitality businesses:

• They will be forced to navigate the deeply challenging terrain of balancing competing rights under the Equality Act, deciding where to draw the line between allowing a customer to express a ‘protected’ philosophical or religious belief and protecting their employees from being offended or upset.

• They will be forced to take legal advice on avoiding liability under clause 20 and what new mechanisms to put in place to police third-party conversations.

• In the course of taking “all reasonable steps” to protect their employees from third party ‘harassment’, employers will have to take on additional employees to monitor customer conversations and implement a ‘woke’ code of conduct.

How can a government that claims to be ‘pro-growth’ be contemplating such a measure? The businesses effected are already on their knees as a result of Covid, the energy crisis, the rise in the cost of living, Business Rate hikes, changes in business property relief, increases in employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and the upping of the National Living Wage. Turbo-charging the Equality Act in this way – and expecting employers to comply with it – will be the final straw for many struggling businesses, further devastating our high streets and swelling the ranks of the unemployed.

One final point: when the Equality Act was originally passed, it included a clause making employers liable for the harassment of employees by third parties, but it was repealed in 2013 because it proved to be so costly and difficult for employers to comply with. We mustn’t make the same mistake again.

Yours sincerely,

Gareth Hughes

The importance of regularly reviewing and refreshing operational procedures cannot be overstated, especially in the realm of licensing reviews. Over my three decades of experience as a barrister in licensing and also dealing with many reviews under the Licensing Act 2003, a common issue emerges where long-standing and indeed very experienced license holders tend to rely on past successes, assuming all is well due to years of incident-free operation.

I’m afraid the – “we’ve always done it this way” defence – cuts no ice with licensing committees.

Recently, in a police review I handled for residents, it became evident that a license holder had neglected to review their premises’ license conditions since its grant in 2005. While superficial compliance was maintained, the actual implementation fell short. Routine had overtaken vigilance, leading to a lack of preparedness when faced with a serious incident. Many staff had stopped thinking and were rather mindlessly operating out of habit. The absence of practice drills and clear procedures resulted in chaos during critical moments, compromising the preservation of crime scenes – a grave concern for police.

In such instances, the argument of mere technical compliance holds no sway with elected members. This case underscores the critical necessity for license holders to regularly revisit all license conditions with their staff, ensuring a thorough comprehension of each requirement and how best to fulfil them.

Recently, I was invited by a client to participate in a training session at a prominent London establishment, engaging a large staff cohort in dissecting and debating all 72 licence conditions. This exercise not only sparked innovative ideas but also revitalized operational approaches, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and vigilance. Now that kind of initiative has an infinitely better chance of ensuring a premises licence can be preserved on an application for review!!

Recent reviews at iconic venues such as Heaven, Groucho Club and Drumshed suggest that procedures had perhaps become somewhat tired and needed to be augmented by the addition of further new conditions which happened on review allowing each premises to remain open.

Photograph: Kate Busz for Time Out