The call follows the publication of the Mayor of London’s Draft London Strategic Licensing Policy 2026–31 last month.
The lengthy document sets out the Mayor’s vision for licensing across the capital, establishing principles that all 33 London boroughs must follow when making licensing decisions.
In theory, the proposed changes should bring greater consistency. Currently, boroughs take very different approaches to licensing, meaning it is far easier to acquire or amend a licence in some areas than in others.
“Too often we’ve heard from pubs, clubs, music venues, restaurants and others that have struggled to get the licenses they need to succeed,” says the current London Mayor Sadiq Aman Khan. “That’s why I’m working to create a system that will end the ‘licensing postcode lottery’ and works for businesses, boroughs and Londoners alike.”
The proposals would also give the Mayor a formal strategic role in London’s licensing system for the first time.
Simon Anderson, the former boss of Market Halls and now a food hall expert and the co-founder of hospitality consultancy Next Phase, says the proposed changes are broadly positive for the industry.
“They’re trying to benchmark London against places like New York, Tokyo and New South Wales as global nightlife and entertainment destinations. That’s exciting. On the face of it, it looks like it will be easier to open venues under this new regime than it is now.
“There’s also a recognition that hospitality businesses are vital to the economy. The policy also acknowledges that licensing is too complex for smaller operators and those from underrepresented groups, and it aims to make the system simpler, fairer and more accessible. Crucially, it starts to properly value the night-time economy.”
Key changes that could make it easier to obtain and amend licences include an explicit pushback on blanket conditions and rigid core hours policies, with each application assessed on its merits.
This could effectively bring an end to controversial Cumulative Impact Assessments (CIAs) that allow councils to refuse new licences.
The document also recognises that SMEs and grassroots operators are disproportionately burdened by the current system, and signals greater support for flexible, multi-purpose business models.
Another significant shift is the proposal to place responsibility for noise mitigation on residential developers building near existing hospitality venues.
“This is massive, and could help end the situation where people move next to a late-night venue and then complain about noise, leading to closures,” Anderson says.
Other positive changes for operators include a curtailing of unnecessary and duplicated conditions - such as excessive CCTV requirements and blanket door supervision rules - as well as encouragement of pre-application engagement to help avoid costly hearings.
However, there are concerns. One issue is the potential for added bureaucracy, with questions over how the new framework will interact with the existing system it is intended to improve.
Under the proposals, the Mayor would also gain new call-in powers. “After a borough grants a licence, the Mayor can step in and redetermine it if it is deemed ‘strategically important’. The GLA would also become a responsible authority, meaning it can formally object to applications. The criteria for both are broad - if used negatively, this could be a real problem,” Anderson says.
The primary way for residents and stakeholders to respond is via the Talk London platform, which includes a short survey covering the key proposals.
More detailed feedback can be submitted by email to the Greater London Authority (GLA) at StrategicLicensingConsultation@london.gov.uk.
Anderson adds: “Consultations like this tend to attract objectors by default - residents with noise complaints, anti-nightlife campaigners and people with axes to grind. Unless operators, venue owners, event promoters and night-time economy workers actively participate, responses will skew against the sector.
“This policy could make London’s licensing system genuinely fairer, faster and more growth-friendly - or it could add another layer of costly complexity. That outcome depends on who shows up.”