Sir Sadiq Khan’s musical tastes tend toward soft rock and pop. But throughout his tenure as mayor of London he has positioned himself as a friend to its ravers, rockers and late-night revellers with his oft-relaunched vision of a culturally and economically vibrant “24‑hour city”. Those ambitions have fallen short of their promise, as London, like the rest of the country, has seen a steady erosion of pubs, bars and clubs.
There is reason to believe that the latest attempt – centred on a new nightlife commission announced last week by the mayor, and based on recommendations from a report endorsed by his office – will be different. The report’s authors include representatives of successful grassroots projects, rather than just industry figures associated with festivals and superclubs. It is unusually alive to local concerns. The debate is not really economic or cultural but political: who controls shared local space? Without councils and residents on side, the plan goes nowhere.
That being said, the report usefully challenges stereotypes about nightlife’s supposed association with crime, though its conclusions depend on comparisons that obscure the tensions local councils are asked to manage. For example, comparing nightlife hubs with other busy areas, rather than quieter residential streets, is technically sound but also serves a political purpose. It redirects attention from nightlife-linked crime to crowd management – shifting responsibility away from venues. The proposal to use real-time sound monitoring is more promising, potentially moving the spotlight away from anecdote toward hard evidence.
Beyond tax relief, the report points to seed funding for night-time activity that doesn’t rely on alcohol sales. Late-running art spaces or night markets could add social value in areas where the only after-dark options are pubs and bars. Broadening what counts as “nightlife” may also make it easier to win over residents, by grounding venues and events in community use rather than alcohol-led consumption.
Although devolution legislation wending its way through parliament would allow the mayor to call in licensing decisions, the report does not argue that this power should be used routinely. Instead, it suggests change is best achieved by working with councils, adjusting the existing system rather than replacing it, and reinforcing the principle known as “agent of change” whereby newcomers – residents as well as venues – are expected to adapt to an area’s established character.
This is a sensible approach to take. Councils are better placed than the mayor to hear and settle local disputes. Crucially, there must be a recognition that their authority rests on democratic consent. Decisions about shared space are more likely to be accepted when they are made close to the communities affected. Call-in powers should only be used for decisions of exceptional public interest. With thousands of venues across the capital, routine intervention by the mayor’s office would be neither credible nor desirable.
London’s night-time economy represents roughly a quarter of the city’s total economic output. But nightlife matters for more than its economic returns; it is also often a cultural and social good. London is a diverse place. Some people want to be in bed by 6pm, some by 6am. The capital should be able to accommodate both. If successful, London would offer a useful test case for other cities wrestling with similar tensions.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
