Institute of Licensing backs extended closure powers but warns of risks and calls for stronger safeguards

The Institute of Licensing (IoL) has submitted its formal response to the Home Office consultation on proposals to increase the maximum duration of closure orders under the Anti‑social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

The consultation, which closed on 31 July 2026, seeks views on extending the current six‑month limit to a potential maximum of 12 months. According to the IoL’s public briefing, the review forms part of wider efforts to strengthen enforcement tools used to tackle organised criminality, persistent anti‑social behaviour and exploitation linked to problem premises.

The IoL’s response supports the proposal in principle, recognising that enforcement agencies increasingly face complex challenges involving serious crime, exploitation and entrenched disorder. The organisation notes that closure powers are an important intervention where immediate action is required to prevent ongoing harm.

However, the IoL emphasises that closure orders are “among the most intrusive regulatory interventions available to the courts” and warns that any extension must remain firmly grounded in necessity, proportionality and judicial oversight. It stresses that a 12‑month order should be exceptional rather than routine, with courts continuing to impose the minimum period required based on the evidence.

The submission highlights several risks associated with prolonged closures. These include significant impacts on legitimate businesses, landlords and investors who may not be complicit in offending; detrimental effects on town centres and high streets where long‑term vacancy can reduce footfall and confidence; and harm to the night‑time economy, particularly where issues could be resolved through improved management or regulatory compliance. The IoL also warns of displacement, noting that closure of one premises may simply move criminal or anti‑social activity elsewhere.

A major theme of the response is the need for *effective review mechanisms* where circumstances materially change. The IoL argues that longer closure periods increase the likelihood that an order initially justified may become disproportionate as investigations progress or management arrangements improve. Drawing parallels with Licensing Act 2003 summary review appeals, the IoL cautions that statutory urgency must be recognised in court listing practices to prevent businesses failing before appeals or variations can be heard.

The IoL recommends safeguards including clear evidential justification for lengthy closures, explicit guidance that 12 months is a maximum rather than a default, mandatory review dates for extended orders, expedited timetables for applications to vary or discharge, and HMCTS listing guidance to ensure urgent case management. It also calls for government to collect and publish data on the use and outcomes of closure orders following any legislative change.

The consultation also sought views on whether extended powers should apply only to criminal behaviour or also to serious nuisance and disorder. The IoL supports their continued use for persistent and harmful nuisance where alternative interventions have failed, provided robust evidential standards are met. It further suggests that different approaches may be appropriate for commercial, mixed‑use and residential premises.