Urgent - Mayor's Licensing Call-in Powers – 4 weeks to act!

Dear RSMSJ Community,

On 13 October the Government published the rules for the Mayor's new licensing powers. Westminster is more exposed than any other borough to the Mayor essentially taking over licensing from elected councillors. We have until 22 November to persuade MPs to stop this.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED?

On 13 October the Government laid the Licensing Act 2003 (Applications of Potential Strategic Importance to Greater London etc) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/1078). This statutory instrument will come into force on 3 November unless MPs stop it. The SI defines which licensing applications the Mayor can "call in" and decide himself without any further hearing.  It fills in the last piece of the jigsaw from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act - these provisions concentrate power with Mayor away from local councillors and actively undermine any powers communities may have to be heard or ask questions about licensing issues that impact them.  If we do nothing it will become law automatically without any further debate in Parliament.

WHAT IS AT STAKE

1. The SI makes the scope of "strategic"  almost everything. An application is "strategic" if the premises have a rateable value over £87,000, whatever their size or hours. It is also "strategic" if a smaller premises wants to trade after 11pm or have live music. That covers around 90% of licensed premises in London! Ministers told Parliament when the enabling legislation was approved the power would be "a measure of last resort" for "particular instances".  That is not what the SI delivers.

2. Decisions move from councillors in public to the Mayor in private. Today, Westminster's elected councillors (form both sides of the political fence) decide applications at a public hearing, where residents, the police and environmental health give evidence. Under the new rules (and for over 90% of premises if the SI is not overturned), if the council refuses an application or imposes conditions, the Mayor can overturn that decision on the papers within 20 working days and force the grant of the application. There is no public hearing and no right for anyone to make representations or ask questions. The power works one way only: the Mayor can grant what the council refused, or water down its conditions on safety and noise, but can never impose new safety conditions or shorten hours from those requested.  It would appear that the Mayor's team can also attend the council hearing, say nothing, and then overturn the council decision.  Appeals, while theoretically possible, will be expensive and risky.

3. "Growth" as defined by the Mayor comes first at any cost and this raises the risk of serious conflicts with the Licensing Act which appear to have been ignored. The Government says the purpose is "to support the growth of the night-time economy". The Mayor has said he wants to "extend London's late-night offer". He has asked Westminster to scrap its cumulative impact policy and core hours. In practice that could mean closing times moving from midnight to 2am or 3am across much of the Westminster while ignoring crime and nuisance issues.  The Mayor has remained silent on terminal hours and we think that is intentional.  We need to be told what the Mayor’s plans are.
4. There was no public consultation and no impact assessment for the SI.

5. None of this fundamental change in local democracy and accountability appears in the government's  2024 manifesto.
   
   WHY WESTMINSTER IS PARTICULARLY AFFECTED
   
   - Westminster has more high-value licensed premises than any other borough. Around 2,000 of its roughly 4,000 licences are in the top rateable-value bands, so any application they make can be called in. Most of the rest come into scope as soon as they seek hours after 11pm.
   - The West End cumulative impact zone rests on years of evidence. Westminster's 2026 draft assessment found that 61% of the borough's midnight-to-6am crime happens in the two West End zones, and that robbery peaks between midnight and 2am, when venues close. The Mayor has publicly called for that policy to be removed.
   - The Mayor has singled out Westminster's licensing policy for criticism in the press and pursued a misleading narrative that parts of the policy are new when they aren't. We should expect Westminster decisions to be among the first called in. WASF (Westminster Amenity Society Forum) attended a number of meetings with the GLA's licensing team in 2025. We presented uncontroversial data on alcohol related crime and the impact unmanaged dispersal from NTE can have on health and sleep - our impression is that GLA have no interest in making balanced decisions based on the evidence.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO

1. Forward this to everyone who is interested in preserving residential amenity  in the Westminster.
2. Write to your MP next week. A suggested email is below, please adapt it, add a local example if you can, and send a copy to licensing@rsmsj.com
3. Ask your MP to support a motion to either annul SI 2026/1078, or at least to withdraw it and consult properly. Because the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, they become law unless Parliament votes them down, by 22 November!

4. Brief your friends and colleagues and ask them to do the same if they agree.
   5. send this to anyone else in London you know who may face similar concerns

------------------------------------------------------------
SUGGESTED EMAIL TO YOUR MP

------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Please oppose SI 2026/1078 – Mayor of London licensing call-in

Dear [MP name],

I am writing as a constituent, and as a member of [amenity society], about the Licensing Act 2003 (Applications of Potential Strategic Importance to Greater London etc) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/1078). They were laid on 13 October and will come into force on 3 November unless action is taken to stop it.

When Parliament gave the Mayor of London a power to call in licensing decisions, Ministers said it would be used only "in specific circumstances, as a measure of last resort". They also said that "the local licensing authority will continue to be the key authority". These regulations do the opposite. They treat any premises with a rateable value over £87,000, and almost any smaller premises seeking to trade after 11pm, as "strategic". That brings around 90% of London's licensed premises within the Mayor's reach.

I am particularly concerned that:

- decisions taken by elected councillors at public hearings, after hearing from residents, police and environmental health, can be overturned by the Mayor, in private, with no hearing and no right for residents or others to make representations;

- the power works one way only: the Mayor can grant what the council refused, or relax its conditions, but cannot impose conditions to reduce crime or nuisance;

- the stated purpose is economic growth, which is not one of the Licensing Act's objectives - that change would require a full debate in Parliament not this opaque process, 

- it would be wrong to abandon the evidence-based cumulative impact policies that protect areas like the West End - and that was explicitly ruled out when the Devo Act was passed - this - - the SI makes a mockery of the Government's commitments made when the Bill was before Parliament;

- there was no public consultation and no impact assessment for the SI but it is a major change in local democracy and accountability on a key issue.
- no one voted for this ...

[Optional: one or two sentences on the effect in your area, for example late-night noise, crime or disturbance on your street.]

Because the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, they will become law unless Parliament acts within 40 days of laying. I would be grateful if you would:

1. support a motion to annul SI 2026/1078, or sign an Early Day Motion praying against it;
2. write to the Minister asking for the regulations to be withdrawn and re-laid only after proper consultation, with a narrow definition of "strategic" and an exclusion for cumulative impact zones; and
3. confirm in writing your decision on this.

I would welcome your response.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]

[Address and postcode – needed so your MP knows you are a constituent]