Free The Night’s response to the Department for Communities consultation on Market Diversity and Innovation in Liquor Licensing
The Department for Communities is consulting on whether Northern Ireland’s liquor licensing system supports market diversity and innovation.
We have submitted a full response to the consultation, which you can read below.
You can respond to the consultation here.
Question 6: How would you describe the current level of diversity in licensed venue type?
Answer: Low level of diversity
Northern Ireland has a low level of diversity in licensed venue type.
The current licensing system does not reflect the way culture and community activity are produced today. The existing categories are heavily weighted towards traditional hospitality models such as pubs, hotels and restaurants, alongside a small number of narrow specialist categories.
This does not adequately support grassroots music venues, independent cultural venues, artist-led spaces, electronic music spaces, purpose-built nightclubs, queer nightlife spaces, multi-use arts spaces, community-led venues, temporary spaces, studios, warehouses, galleries, or other hybrid cultural spaces.
In practice, the current system favours established operators and traditional premises, as was highlighted in the Independent Review of Licensing by Stirling University in 2025. It does not provide a realistic route for new cultural operators, particularly those without the capital to purchase or lease a permanent venue, acquire legal support, or operate through the existing pub-led model.
This lack of diversity affects consumers, artists, promoters, cultural workers and communities. It limits the range of spaces available, reduces opportunities for artists and organisers, and makes it harder to develop a healthy cultural ecosystem in Northern Ireland, leading to creative drain to other cities.
Question 7: Does the current licensing regime adequately support market diversity in licensed venue type?
Answer: Does not support
The current licensing regime does not adequately support market diversity in licensed venue type.
For consumers, the system limits choice. People should be able to access a wider range of safe, well-managed cultural spaces that are not simply pubs, hotels, restaurants or large-scale venues. Northern Ireland should have room for smaller cultural spaces, late-night music venues, listening bars, non-traditional performance spaces and community-led venues.
For prospective licensees, the barriers are too high. The current system is expensive, legally complex and difficult to navigate. The surrender principle, where it applies, creates a major barrier to new entrants. Even where surrender is not required, the categories of premises are too narrow and do not reflect the reality of modern cultural activity.
For current licensees, the system may protect the value of existing licences, but protecting existing licence value should not be prioritised over a healthy, diverse market. A licensing system should serve public interests, not simply preserve the commercial position of existing operators.
For artists, promoters and cultural communities, the regime is particularly restrictive. It often means that cultural activity has to take place through existing licensed premises, rather than allowing independent promoters, collectives or communities to develop their own spaces on fair terms. This gives too much gatekeeping power to existing operators and limits innovation.
Overall, the system does not sufficiently support new entrants, independent cultural activity, grassroots venues, temporary spaces or late-night cultural infrastructure.
Question 8: Are there venues where the sale of alcohol in parallel to a form of entertainment / cultural activity / business should be permitted that are not currently supported by the licensing regime?
Answer: Yes
Question 9: What type of venue(s) is (are) not currently supported?
The current system does not properly support:
grassroots music venues;
purpose-built nightclubs;
listening bars;
independent cultural venues;
multi-use arts and performance spaces;
galleries and studios that host cultural events;
warehouses or non-traditional spaces used for music, performance or cultural activity;
queer nightlife and LGBTQ+ cultural spaces;
artist-led spaces;
temporary or meanwhile-use cultural spaces;
small and medium-sized venues used by independent promoters;
late-night cultural spaces where dancing, music, performance and community gathering are the primary purpose;
The current “place of public entertainment” category is too narrow. It reflects older ideas of cultural activity, such as theatres, cinemas, ballrooms and racetracks. It does not reflect the reality of contemporary cultural life.
A cultural venue today may be a small music space, a gallery, a studio, a community building, a warehouse, a temporary venue, a hybrid arts space, or a purpose-built nightclub. The law should be able to recognise these spaces without forcing them to fit into outdated categories.
Question 10: In what way is more support needed?
More support is needed in several ways.
First, Northern Ireland needs a proper Cultural Venue licence, or equivalent new route, designed around cultural activity rather than traditional hospitality. This should be available to venues whose primary purpose is cultural, artistic, musical, performance-based, dance-based, community-based or creative.
Second, any new cultural route should not depend on the surrender principle. If a cultural venue has to purchase or surrender an existing pub licence, the reform will not solve the problem. The cost of entry will remain too high and the market will continue to favour those with access to capital.
Third, the Department should not assume that expanding the “place of public entertainment” category will be enough. While secondary legislation may allow more premises to become eligible for a “place of public entertainment” licence, that route appears to remain tied to earlier permitted hours. This may help some daytime and evening cultural venues, but it will not meet the needs of late-night cultural spaces, purpose-built nightclubs, or venues where music and dancing continue into the early morning under an entertainment licence.
Fourth, the licensing system needs better alignment between liquor licensing and entertainment licensing. At present, councils may grant entertainment licences on one timetable, while liquor licensing operates under a separate court-based system and separate permitted hours. This creates confusion, cost and uncertainty. A venue should not be told that it can safely and lawfully provide entertainment until a particular time, but then be unable to operate a viable cultural model because the liquor licence ends much earlier.
Fifth, late-night cultural venues should be capable of applying for later alcohol hours where they can demonstrate good management, appropriate safety planning, noise control, transport planning, safeguarding, welfare provision and community impact measures. This should not mean unrestricted alcohol availability. It should mean a properly regulated route that reflects the reality of late-night culture.
Sixth, occasional licensing must be reformed. Not every promoter, artist collective or cultural organisation can afford to own or lease a permanent venue. Temporary and meanwhile-use spaces are essential to cultural development. Independent promoters should be able to make responsible use of temporary spaces without being entirely dependent on existing pub, hotel or restaurant licence holders.
The current occasional licensing model gives too much gatekeeping power to existing licensed premises. A reformed system should allow cultural and community organisations to apply for occasional licences in their own right, subject to clear conditions, proper notice, responsible authority input, safety requirements and limits to prevent abuse.
Question 12: Do you support expanding the categories of premises that can apply for a liquor licence?
Answer: Yes
Yes, we support expanding the categories of premises that can apply for a liquor licence. However, we do not believe that a narrow expansion of the “place of public entertainment” category is sufficient.
The Department should be clear about the distinction between:
expanding eligibility under an existing type of licence; and
creating a genuinely new Cultural Venue licence.
Expanding the “place of public entertainment” category may be useful for some cultural premises. It could help venues that currently do not fit neatly within theatres, cinemas, ballrooms or racetracks, like a listening bar or retro arcade.
However, that route appears to remain tied to earlier permitted hours. A “place of public entertainment” licence allows alcohol sales only within specific hours and only in connection with the entertainment. This may work for some venues, but it does not address the needs of modern late-night cultural venues.
A purpose-built nightclub or late-night cultural space may need to operate later than 11pm, with dancing, performance or music continuing into the early morning under an entertainment licence. A “place of public entertainment” licence does not appear to provide a realistic route for that model.
For that reason, we believe the Department should pursue two routes.
First, commit to a temporary measure within the “places of public entertainment” licence category, allowing venues that provide cultural or community activity, and that can obtain a council entertainment licence, to serve alcohol and operate until the time permitted by their entertainment licence.
For example, a venue currently operating under a theatre licence should be able to serve alcohol after midnight where its council entertainment licence allows later opening. This would give cultural and community venues the flexibility to trial later opening hours, test whether they are beneficial and viable for their business or organisation, and gather evidence to inform longer-term licensing reform.
Second, commit to primary legislation changes to create a standalone Cultural Venue licence. This should include appropriate permitted hours, clear conditions, safeguards, review powers, and a route for later opening where justified by the nature of the cultural activity and the management of the venue.
A Cultural Venue licence should not simply become another speculative asset. It should be designed to support cultural activity. If a venue ceases to operate as a cultural venue, the licence should lapse or return to a public pool rather than being traded privately in a way that recreates the existing barriers to entry, as supported in the Stirling Review.
Question 13: Do you think the categories of premises eligible for a place of public entertainment licence should be expanded?
Answer: Yes
Question 14: What advantages are there from expanding the categories of venues eligible for a place of public entertainment licence?
Expanding the categories of venues eligible for a “place of public entertainment” licence would have several advantages.
The main advantage is that it could help a specific group of cultural, creative and community venues that do not currently fit well within the licensing system, but which also do not necessarily require a late-night operating model. This could bring more cultural activity into a clear, lawful and properly regulated licensing route.
For those venues, expansion could provide a useful route into the licensing system without forcing them to operate as pubs, restaurants or hotels. It could support more varied social and cultural spaces, improve consumer choice, and allow more activity to take place in safe and managed environments.
This would be particularly useful for venues such as galleries, studios, arts centres, small performance spaces, community cultural venues, listening bars, independent music spaces, creative hubs, and meanwhile-use spaces. These venues may want to provide alcohol as an ancillary part of a cultural event, but alcohol is not their primary purpose.
The recent night-time economy research commissioned by the Department for the Economy, Tourism NI and the Belfast BIDs supports this point. It found that Northern Ireland’s night-time economy is already economically significant, contributing an estimated £2.8 billion to £3.7 billion in GVA and supporting between 101,000 and 114,000 full-time equivalent jobs. It also found that current licensing laws are viewed by stakeholders as a barrier to market entry and diversification.
It could also help make better use of existing buildings, meanwhile spaces, vacant units and community assets, particularly where those spaces are capable of being safely managed and where a district council entertainment licence is already in place. This would be especially useful in town and city centres where vacant property could be brought back into active cultural use.
There is also a tourism and placemaking advantage. Cultural events can bring people into town and city centres, encourage longer dwell time, support surrounding businesses, and improve the overall attractiveness of a place. The night-time economy research uses Culture Night Belfast as an example, estimating that a single event of that kind could contribute between £1.3 million and £3.3 million in additional GVA to Belfast’s economy.
However, the advantage is limited. This reform would mostly help venues whose business model can work within the existing permitted hours for places of public entertainment. It would not, on its own, resolve the challenges facing grassroots music venues, late-night venues, purpose-built nightclubs, electronic music venues or independent promoters who need a more flexible framework.
The benefit of expansion therefore depends on the Department being honest about what this route can and cannot achieve. It should be pursued because it may help some cultural and community venues, support diversification, and bring more activity into regulated spaces. But it should not be presented as the full solution to market diversity or cultural licensing reform. A wider cultural venue licence, and specific reform for late-night cultural spaces, will still be needed.
Question 15: What disadvantages or risks are there from expanding the categories of venues eligible for a place of public entertainment licence?
The main risk is that the Department treats expansion of the “place of public entertainment” category as though it has delivered a Cultural Venue licence, when in reality it has only created a limited extension of an existing route.
There is already evidence, through the experience of venues operating under theatre-style or place-of-public-entertainment arrangements, that this model does not meet the needs of many music and cultural venues. The permitted hours are too restrictive, and the model does not provide the same flexibility available to other parts of the licensed sector.
If the Department simply adds more premises to this category, it may help a narrow range of venues but leave the most significant cultural gap untouched. In particular, it will not properly support grassroots music venues, electronic music spaces, late-night cultural venues, purpose-built nightclubs or promoters seeking to build sustainable cultural activity outside traditional pub settings.
The risk is therefore not expansion itself. The risk is that expansion becomes a substitute for the deeper reform that is needed.
There is also a risk that the definition of eligible venues is drafted too narrowly. If the Department simply adds one or two traditional venue types, it will fail to support the grassroots, independent, temporary, hybrid and community-led spaces that most need reform.
There are public interest risks that must be managed, including noise, public safety, alcohol harm, transport, nuisance, safeguarding and the relationship between venues and nearby residents. However, these risks are not reasons to avoid reform. They are reasons to design reform properly, with clear conditions, local authority input, court oversight, safety planning, welfare provision, transport planning and review powers.
A further risk is that existing licence holders use objections to prevent new cultural competition. The system should protect communities from poorly managed premises, but it should not allow incumbent operators to block new entrants simply to protect their commercial position.
The Department should therefore expand the “place of public entertainment” category only as part of a wider reform programme. This should include a standalone Cultural Venue licence, a review of permitted hours for cultural venues, and reform of occasional licensing so that independent promoters and cultural organisations can use temporary spaces without being entirely dependent on existing licence holders.
Question 16: Do you have any additional comments?
Free The Night welcomes the Department’s commitment to exploring how the licensing regime can better support market diversity and innovation. However, we believe the Department should be cautious about treating secondary legislation as a complete solution.
The existing power to prescribe further places of public entertainment may be useful. It could allow the Department to widen the existing route in the short term. However, it should not be presented as delivering the same thing as a standalone Cultural Venue licence.
If all the Department does is add another category of premises to the existing “place of public entertainment” route, the reform may fail to support the venues that most need change.
Northern Ireland needs a licensing system that recognises culture as more than hospitality. Music, dancing, performance, art, nightlife and community gathering are socially and economically valuable in their own right. They support wellbeing, creativity, tourism, talent development, community connection and the retention of young people and artists.
The current system makes it too difficult for new cultural spaces to open. It also makes it too difficult for independent promoters and community organisations to use temporary spaces. This reduces competition, limits consumer choice and weakens Northern Ireland’s cultural infrastructure.
A proper Cultural Venue licence should be created through primary legislation. It should not be subject to the surrender principle. It should allow later alcohol hours where justified and properly regulated. It should be designed around cultural activity, not around the protection of existing licence values.
Any cultural licensing route should include strong safeguards. These should include safety planning, welfare provision, safeguarding, noise management, transport planning, local authority input, court oversight and meaningful review powers. Reform should not mean deregulation. It should mean better regulation that reflects how culture actually works.
Occasional licensing also needs reform. Not every promoter, artist collective or cultural organisation can afford to own or lease a permanent venue. Temporary and meanwhile-use spaces are essential to cultural development. Independent promoters should be able to make responsible use of temporary spaces without being entirely dependent on existing pub, hotel or restaurant licence holders.
The current occasional licensing model gives too much gatekeeping power to existing licensed premises. A reformed system should allow cultural and community organisations to apply for occasional licences in their own right, subject to clear conditions, proper notice, responsible authority input, safety requirements and limits to prevent abuse.
The Department should therefore:
expand the “places of public entertainment” category as a limited interim step;
create a proper Cultural Venue licence through primary legislation;
commit to a temporary measure within the “places of public entertainment” licence category for venues with cultural output to serve alcohol and operate until the time permitted by their entertainment licence.
ensure any cultural licence is not subject to the surrender principle;
allow later alcohol hours where justified and properly regulated;
align liquor licensing and entertainment licensing more effectively;
reform occasional licensing so cultural and community organisations can apply independently;
ensure alcohol is ancillary to cultural activity in this route;
prevent incumbent operators from using objections to block new cultural competition;
publish clear guidance for applicants;
make the system cheaper, more transparent and easier to navigate; and
ensure reform supports grassroots and independent operators, not only established businesses.
A meaningful reform should not simply add “culture” to an outdated framework. It should create a practical, affordable and safe route for the kinds of cultural spaces Northern Ireland currently lacks.
Respond to the consultation here. Closing 23 June 2026, 11.59 pm
