Nightlife Article #48: Navigating the Grey Areas: Is it Time for a Consistent Framework in Night-Time Licensing?

The night-time economy in the UK, vibrant and diverse, fuels not only a substantial part of the country's GDP but also the social fabric that brings people together. Yet, it exists under a licensing regime plagued by inconsistencies, vagueness, and an undeniable dependency on individual interpretations. For many operators, dealing with licensing authorities feels like navigating murky waters, with no clear map or framework to guide them. It raises an important question: Is it time to overhaul the licensing system to provide a fairer, more predictable structure?

Under the current system, the licensing process often relies heavily on the opinions and personalities of individual officers and decision-makers on the ground. This subjective approach creates a lack of continuity and uniformity across different jurisdictions. For businesses, this means that a decision in one borough or city could differ entirely from another, even if the same type of venue and operations are in question.

Without a robust, standardised framework, licensing outcomes are susceptible to biases and personal interpretations. This unpredictability doesn’t just make it difficult for businesses to plan but also fosters a sense of unfairness and distrust between operators and local authorities. Operating in these grey spaces can give those enforcing regulations a level of control that goes beyond ensuring public safety—it sometimes feels like they hold the power to decide who thrives and who doesn’t based on unclear criteria.

In addressing the inconsistency in licensing, could we look towards the approach taken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as a model? The HSE's framework centres on exposure and risk—two crucial elements that should also underpin night-time licensing decisions. By evaluating applications and renewals through a lens that assesses potential exposure to harm and the actual risk posed by the activity, we could move away from subjective decisions and toward a system grounded in empirical assessment.

An HSE-style approach would allow for standardised risk assessment methods that look at the type of venue, expected crowd size, operational hours, and location. This framework could establish measurable criteria that all applications must meet, making the process fairer and more transparent. Decision-makers could rely less on personal judgment and more on standardised exposure and risk assessments, fostering consistency across the country.

With the impending introduction of Martyn’s Law (the Protect Duty) following the tragic Manchester Arena attack, the landscape of licensing is set to become even more complex. Martyn’s Law will require public spaces and venues to adopt stronger anti-terrorism measures. For night-time venues, this means balancing safety compliance with regulatory licensing, adding an additional layer to an already burdensome and unpredictable system.

Martyn’s Law will force businesses to increase their vigilance and security protocols, but if the licensing framework doesn’t evolve alongside it, there’s a risk of further misalignment. Venue operators could find themselves facing even more inconsistencies, as authorities grapple with interpreting new safety requirements under a licensing regime that lacks a cohesive structure.

One potential solution lies in standardised training for licensing officers. Just as police and HSE officers receive structured training on specific criteria, licensing officers could benefit from a defined curriculum that outlines clear, objective standards for assessing applications and renewals.

Creating a standardised, transparent decision-making framework would also benefit applicants, who could then approach the licensing process with a clear understanding of what’s expected. This approach would provide operators with the confidence that their applications will be assessed fairly, based on measurable criteria rather than subjective opinions.

For some authorities, the current system’s flexibility might feel like an asset. The lack of a clear-cut framework gives them a degree of discretion to address local concerns and unique venue issues. However, this flexibility can be a double-edged sword. While it allows for adaptability, it also opens the door to inconsistent, sometimes arbitrary decision-making that undermines trust between operators and authorities.

In the absence of a transparent structure, the “grey space” can become a tool for exerting control rather than upholding fairness. An adaptable but structured approach could preserve the benefits of flexibility while eliminating the risk of unchecked discretion.

The night-time economy is too valuable and too complex to be managed by a system prone to inconsistencies and subjective interpretations. Implementing a framework that incorporates exposure and risk, as well as standardised training for licensing officers, would create a more level playing field. In this new structure, operators would know that their compliance with objective criteria, rather than individual opinions, determines their licensing outcomes.

As we face new safety challenges with Martyn’s Law, the time seems right to consider a change. A licensing system grounded in fairness, consistency, and objective risk assessments would benefit not only venue operators but also the wider public, whose safety and enjoyment rely on a night-time economy that thrives within a balanced, transparent framework.

The question remains: will policymakers seize this opportunity to bring clarity and continuity to night-time licensing, or will the industry continue to navigate in the shadows of ambiguity?