Beyond “vertical drinking”: what the Westminster dispute tells us about evidence-led strategic licensing

The argument over Westminster’s proposed licensing policy has produced an irresistible headline: is the council trying to stop people standing up in pubs?

Westminster says emphatically that it is not. The language around “vertical drinking” has appeared in its licensing approach for more than a decade and relates principally to whether seating and table service can help manage congestion in particular premises and locations. The council also says that 98 per cent of licensing applications are approved.

But the headlines obscure a much more consequential dispute. This is not really about whether Londoners may stand at a bar. It is about how licensing authorities use evidence, how cumulative impact is assessed and what should happen when a borough’s policy appears to conflict with a wider strategy for nightlife, culture and economic growth.

It is also an early test of London’s emerging strategic licensing system.

The Mayor of London has reportedly challenged Westminster’s proposed approach, arguing that it could inhibit the growth of hospitality and nightlife in one of the capital’s most important cultural districts.

Some reports described this as the Mayor “ordering” Westminster to rewrite its policy. The legal position is more nuanced. Since 29 June 2026, London boroughs have been required to consult the Mayor when preparing or revising their licensing policies. City Hall is also testing its ability to participate in licensing cases as a responsible authority.

However, the Mayor’s proposed London-wide Strategic Licensing Policy and power to call in strategically important licensing decisions still require secondary legislation. Those powers are not yet fully operational. This is therefore an important political and policy intervention, rather than the completed exercise of a new call-in power.

Reading The Numbers

An Approval Rate Does Not Tell Us Whether the System Is Working

Westminster’s statement that it approves 98 per cent of applications is useful context, but it does not settle the argument.

An application can be approved with shorter hours, a reduced capacity or conditions that materially change its commercial proposition. A high approval rate also tells us nothing about businesses that decide not to apply because they believe the policy makes success unlikely.

Nor does it distinguish routine or uncontested applications from new premises, substantial variations and applications within the cumulative impact zone. It cannot, on its own, tell us whether the licensing system is enabling a healthy, diverse and investable night-time economy.

The same caution applies to raw crime, noise and antisocial-behaviour figures. Busy places will generally produce more recorded incidents than quiet ones. The important questions are whether harms are increasing relative to footfall, when and where they occur, which activities are associated with them, and whether a proposed licensing restriction would address their causes.

A concentration of licensed premises and a concentration of recorded incidents may be connected. That does not mean that every premises type contributes equally, that every additional licence will increase harm or that refusal is necessarily the most effective intervention.

Evidence-led licensing requires more than evidence being present. It requires evidence to be relevant to the decision.

A Diagnostic Tool

Cumulative Impact Should Be a Diagnosis, Not a Permanent Verdict

Cumulative impact assessments are legitimate and sometimes necessary. In areas with exceptional concentrations of licensed premises, it would be irresponsible to consider each application as though it existed in isolation.

But a cumulative impact assessment should be a diagnosis of particular pressures, not a permanent declaration that an area has reached an undefined state of saturation.

It should identify which problems are occurring, at what times, in which locations and in connection with which kinds of activity. It should consider whether harm arises primarily inside venues, immediately outside them or later in the customer journey. It should distinguish between problems caused by licensed premises and those associated with transport gaps, street design, waste collection, illegal trading or an insufficient public-safety presence.

This is especially important in mixed-use districts. A seated restaurant, a grassroots music venue, a late-night café and a high-volume vertical-drinking bar may all hold premises licences, but they do not create identical impacts. Treating them as though they do risks producing a policy that is administratively simple but strategically blunt.

Evidence should also be capable of changing the conclusion. If a cumulative impact zone remains in substantially the same form for many years, decision-makers should ask whether the evidence continues to justify it, whether its boundaries remain appropriate and whether other interventions could manage harm more effectively.

Otherwise, a precautionary policy can quietly become a form of managed decline.

Looking Ahead

The Opportunity in Strategic Licensing

London’s new strategic licensing arrangements could help address a longstanding structural problem. Boroughs make decisions locally, but the night-time economy operates across borough boundaries.

People may work in one borough, socialise in another and travel home through several more. Venue closures can displace audiences, noise and demand rather than remove them. Restrictive hours in one district can produce sudden concentrations of people elsewhere. Transport capacity, policing and cultural infrastructure are city-wide systems.

There is therefore a strong case for strategic oversight.

But strategic licensing will only improve outcomes if it raises the quality of evidence and coordination. It must not merely replace an assumption in favour of restriction with an assumption in favour of growth.

The threshold for intervention must nevertheless be clear. Strategic importance cannot simply mean large, prominent or commercially powerful. Some of London’s most important cultural spaces are small, marginal and difficult to replace.

The new system should also preserve local knowledge and procedural fairness. Boroughs understand street-level conditions that may be invisible in city-wide data. Residents, workers, operators and communities need to know who is making a decision, what evidence is being relied upon and how competing claims have been assessed.

Handled well, strategic licensing could make London more coherent without making it more centralised.

Conclusion

A Test Worth Getting Right

The Westminster dispute is not a straightforward contest between a council that wants quiet streets and a Mayor who wants economic growth. Both positions contain legitimate concerns and both require proper evidence.

Westminster must demonstrate that its policies respond proportionately to current, specific harms and do not unnecessarily inhibit cultural activity, investment or innovation. City Hall must demonstrate that strategic intervention will improve decision-making rather than merely increase political control.

For NTES, the central principle should be clear: licensing policy must be based on transparent, granular and contestable evidence. It should account for the different impacts of different premises, recognise the cultural and social value that venues create, and operate alongside proper investment in transport, safety and public-realm management.

The future of strategic licensing should not be decided through a false choice between protecting residents and supporting nightlife. A well-managed night-time economy does both.