In north London, Camden Council has reviewed the Late Night Levy, an extra tax on businesses, typically pubs and clubs, that open late.
A report to Camden’s Licensing Committee on February 11 by Director of Recreation and Public Safety, Oliver Jones, proposed to approve the retention of the Late Night Levy (LNL) with ‘significant reforms’, such as making ‘late-night refreshment premises’ pay the levy too, to bring in an estimated extra £38,000. By comparison, some 233 premises last year paid £288,788. The full council is due to meet on March 2; the recommendation is that it retains the levy; although a report to the committee spoke of a ‘perceived absence of uniformed police at night’, which the levy was brought in to address, to tackle drug dealing and drunken disorder, besides ‘illegal street trading, public urination, littering and commercial waste offences’. A general view given by businesses was ‘that the burden of public safety has shifted to businesses’ and some argued that the levy’s effect was minimal.
Background
To give some brief background, Camden adopted the levy in April 2016; most of the money goes to the police, towards policing the night-time economy; the council uses the rest. In February 2025, the council commissioned an independent review. One grumble by those who pay it – quite apart from resenting having to pay it, finding it ‘burdensome’ in tough trading conditions for business generally – is that they can’t see where it’s spent; hence the consultation reported ‘support for spending that delivers visible, practical benefits, including policing, street cleansing/public toilets, and night-time safety initiatives’. Hence the report to councillors proposed among other things ‘a clear narrative of funded activity and outcomes’. The borough includes the busy Camden Market, besides Kilburn, Holborn, Bloomsbury and King’s Cross; and Seven Dials, whose on-street security provided for Shaftesbury Capital is featured in the March edition of Professional Security Magazine.
What police say
The consultation found feelings ‘mixed’; as for the policing of night life, some said that when visible, policing can be reassuring; but questioned if the patrols happen enough to be effective. The Metropolitan Police reported that the levy gave 72 hours’ worth of policing, and asserted ‘that LNL funding enables additional high-visibility patrols and targeted operations (eg. against knife crime and mobile phone thefts)’. Police park a ‘large 4×4 policing vehicle right at the forefront of Camden High Street, near the Tube station’. In and around Camden Town, according to the report ‘several venues believed that there had actually been a visible reduction in police presence over time …. prompting them to invest in additional door staff or private security to meet their licensing conditions’. Some operators stated that they ‘routinely hire double – or even quadruple – the number of security staff required by their licence, citing insufficient external enforcement during late night hours’. While the report claimed to see a ‘perception versus reality’ issue, it admitted ‘businesses, like residents, would prefer foot-based patrols and the police are mainly providing motorbike and vehicle based patrols’. The report also admitted that the Met Police couldn’t roster specific Levy patrollers until they got the money levied by the council; hence ‘breaks in the service’, as between April and June 2025. The report did raise the question of how much patrolling £300,000 a year can buy ‘when it is at overtime rates’. As a comparison, the forecast for nearby Hackney’s levy spending this year is £380,000; while most neighbouring Islington’s levy funds a £400,000 a year Nightsafe Patrol Team, ‘a four-person police accredited street-based tasking team’ provided by Parkguard and working four nights a week, usually Thursdays to Sundays. They take an ‘early intervention style approach’, ‘engaging with people on the street, supporting door staff dealing with difficult customers and providing a rapid response to licence holder requests for assistance’.
Views
As for how much of a burden the levy is, the consultation found several venues that ‘had deliberately chosen not to apply for late-night extensions’, to avoid incurring the levy. The report quoted the trade body the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA), which complains the levy is ‘merely a direct and punitive tax’ on struggling businesses; the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA) view is similar. One pub director complained that its premises has its own security, ‘so are effectively paying twice’. The Met Police made a case that from ‘community feedback, the falling crime data and the policing style’, the levy was working well. The Met also praised the Camden Town Unlimited local business improvement district (BID) wardens and the council’s Community Safety Enforcement Officers (CSEOs) as a ‘great asset’. The police, wardens and CSEOs conduct a joint weekly patrol; ‘walking through the High Street to tackle ASB and crime’. While the authorities do do things, such as pop-up urinals, a Safe Haven or the SOS bus, the report acknowledged a ‘lack of visibility’ that has undermined the credibility of the levy. Many complained to the consultation that the levy ‘unfairly targets venues that are already well-managed and professionally staffed, while off-sales retailers, supermarkets, takeaway chains and delivery services remain exempt’, though their sales cause some of the area’s noise and nuisance. Most councils have never taken up the levy; not even most boroughs in London; although outside London, Liverpool and Newcastle upon Tyne have.
As an aside, the Camden Town BID has gone out to a ballot this month as to whether it should have a fifth, five year term.
Photo by Mark Rowe: St Pancras, February morning.
