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 Camdenโs 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 โsignificant reformsโ, such as making โlate-night refreshment premisesโ pay the levy too, to bring in an estimated extra ยฃ38,000. By comparison, some 233 premises last year paid ยฃ288,788. 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 โperceived absence of uniformed police at nightโ, which the levy was brought in to address, to tackle drug dealing and drunken disorder, besides โillegal street trading, public urination, littering and commercial waste offencesโ. A general view given by businesses was โthat the burden of public safety has shifted to businessesโ and some argued that the levyโs 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 โ quite apart from resenting having to pay it, finding it โburdensomeโ in tough trading conditions for business generally – is that they canโt see where itโs spent; hence the consultation reported โsupport for spending that delivers visible, practical benefits, including policing, street cleansing/public toilets, and night-time safety initiativesโ. Hence the report to councillors proposed among other things โa clear narrative of funded activity and outcomesโ. The borough includes the busy Camden Market, besides Kilburn, Holborn, Bloomsbury and Kingโs 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 โmixedโ; 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 hoursโ worth of policing, and asserted โthat LNL funding enables additional high-visibility patrols and targeted operations (eg. against knife crime and mobile phone thefts)โ. Police park a โlarge 4×4 policing vehicle right at the forefront of Camden High Street, near the Tube stationโ. In and around Camden Town, according to the report โseveral venues believed that there had actually been a visible reduction in police presence over time โฆ. prompting them to invest in additional door staff or private security to meet their licensing conditionsโ. Some operators stated that they โroutinely hire double – or even quadruple – the number of security staff required by their licence, citing insufficient external enforcement during late night hoursโ. While the report claimed to see a โperception versus realityโ issue, it admitted โbusinesses, like residents, would prefer foot-based patrols and the police are mainly providing motorbike and vehicle based patrolsโ. The report also admitted that the Met Police couldnโt roster specific Levy patrollers until they got the money levied by the council; hence โbreaks in the serviceโ, as between April and June 2025. The report did raise the question of how much patrolling ยฃ300,000 a year can buy โwhen it is at overtime ratesโ. As a comparison, the forecast for nearby Hackneyโs levy spending this year is ยฃ380,000; while most neighbouring Islingtonโs levy funds a ยฃ400,000 a year Nightsafe Patrol Team, โa four-person police accredited street-based tasking teamโ provided by Parkguard and working four nights a week, usually Thursdays to Sundays. They take an โearly intervention style approachโ, โengaging with people on the street, supporting door staff dealing with difficult customers and providing a rapid response to licence holder requests for assistanceโ.
Views
As for how much of a burden the levy is, the consultation found several venues that โhad deliberately chosen not to apply for late-night extensionsโ, to avoid incurring the levy. The report quoted the trade body the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA), which complains the levy is โmerely a direct and punitive taxโ on struggling businesses; the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA) view is similar. One pub director complained that its premises has its own security, โso are effectively paying twiceโ. The Met Police made a case that from โcommunity feedback, the falling crime data and the policing styleโ, the levy was working well. The Met also praised the Camden Town Unlimited local business improvement district (BID) wardens and the councilโs Community Safety Enforcement Officers (CSEOs) as a โgreat assetโ. The police, wardens and CSEOs conduct a joint weekly patrol; โwalking through the High Street to tackle ASB and crimeโ. While the authorities do do things, such as pop-up urinals, a Safe Haven or the SOS bus, the report acknowledged a โlack of visibilityโ that has undermined the credibility of the levy. Many complained to the consultation that the levy โunfairly targets venues that are already well-managed and professionally staffed, while off-sales retailers, supermarkets, takeaway chains and delivery services remain exemptโ, though their sales cause some of the areaโs 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.
