On 15 October 2026, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) (Principal Use of Premises) Regulations 2026 (the Regulations) came into force. The Regulations set out how to determine principal use of premises for the purposes of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 (the Act), also known as Martyn’s Law. This matters to property owners, operators and investors because principal use is relevant to identifying the person responsible for ensuring the requirements of the Act are met. The Home Office published accompanying guidance on 10 September 2026; it states that the Act’s substantive duties are not expected to commence until spring 2027.
This update follows our April 2025 GT Alert.
A Brief Reminder: What Will the Act Require?
Broadly, premises may fall within scope if they include a publicly accessible building, are wholly or mainly used for one or more activities listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, and at least 200 people, including staff, may reasonably be expected to be present simultaneously from time to time.
Relevant uses include hotels, restaurants, shops, leisure facilities and higher education. Restricting access to guests, members or ticket holders does not, by itself, put premises outside scope.
Standard tier premises will require appropriate, reasonably practicable procedures for evacuation, moving people to a safer location within the premises, lockdown and communication. Enhanced tier premises—generally those meeting the 800-person threshold—and qualifying events will face additional requirements, including protective measures addressing monitoring, movement, physical security and information security.
What Do the Principal Use Rules Change?
The Regulations determine the principal use where a single set of qualifying premises has two or more uses listed in Schedule 1. This identifies the relevant use for determining the responsible person; it is not a general test for deciding whether an entire mixed-use development falls within scope.
The assessment has two stages:
- Identify which use most closely reflects the premises’ purpose and nature, considering their original construction or subsequent modification, continuing use, physical characteristics and treatment by the local authority.
- If that does not resolve the question, consider all relevant circumstances, including the space and time devoted to each use and whether one use supports another.
Planning permissions and licences are relevant, but not conclusive in isolation. The guidance also identifies leases, plans, operating hours and trading information as potentially useful evidence, and recommends reviewing the assessment when circumstances change.
The test does not combine separate qualifying premises into one merely because they occupy the same building or estate. The boundaries of each premises are a separate consideration.
Implications for Hotels, Student Accommodation & Residential Assets
The guidance gives the example of a restaurant forming part of a hotel: hotel use is the principal use, and the responsible person’s obligations extend to all activities within those premises. The example does not mean that every hotel concession forms part of the same premises; the configuration and control of facilities are relevant to the assessment.
Schedule 1 of the Act expressly includes student accommodation managed by or on behalf of a higher education institution. Where higher education is the relevant use, the Act identifies the institution’s governing body as the responsible person. Privately operated accommodation let directly to students is not automatically within scope solely because it houses students; management arrangements and any other potentially qualifying uses are also relevant.
Ordinary residential use is not a Schedule 1 category. However, separately identifiable commercial or leisure premises within a build-to-rent or other residential development may qualify independently. Whether resident-only amenities constitute public leisure premises depends on the statutory use and access criteria as applied to the particular circumstances.
Responsibility Depends on Control, Not Labels
Ownership, branding and holding a premises licence do not, by themselves, determine responsibility. The Home Office corrected its statutory guidance in August 2026, clarifying that, in its leased-pub example, the tenant controlling the relevant use—not the brewery or pub company holding the premises licence—is the responsible person. Hotel management, lease and concession arrangements may also be relevant to identifying the responsible person.
Separate duties may apply. Responsible persons for qualifying premises within other qualifying premises must coordinate, so far as reasonably practicable. A landlord or another party retaining some control over enhanced tier premises or premises hosting a qualifying event may have to cooperate even if it is not the responsible person.
Brief Reminder: Enforcement & Sanctions
The Security Industry Authority will oversee enforcement, with inspection and information-gathering powers and the ability to issue compliance and restriction notices. These notices may temporarily close enhanced tier premises or prevent qualifying events from taking place.
Maximum financial penalties will be £10,000 for standard tier premises and, for enhanced tier premises or qualifying events, the greater of £18 million or 5% of worldwide revenue. Additional daily penalties may apply for continuing non-compliance. Certain breaches may also attract criminal liability, including imprisonment, a fine, or both. Senior officers may face prosecution where the relevant statutory conditions are met, including consent or connivance.
Portfolios & Transaction Considerations
Matters relevant to portfolio reviews and transactions include:
- Mapping premises and expected occupancy, rather than relying solely on bed numbers or stated capacity.
- Recording principal use assessments and identifying the legal entity that may be the responsible person.
- Reviewing leases, management agreements and concessions for provisions addressing operational control, information-sharing, alterations, security services and cost allocation.
- Considering preparedness, anticipated expenditure and responsibility for implementation in acquisition and investment due diligence.
- Reassessing arrangements following refurbishment, changes of use or operator changes.
Contractual arrangements can support compliance and allocate tasks and costs, but they do not replace the Act’s rules on legal responsibility. Portfolio-level analysis may also consider whether the relevant entities have the authority, information and resources to prepare.
