VISITORS staying overnight in English towns and cities could eventually pay an additional charge after the Government announced new powers allowing regional leaders to introduce local visitor levies.

Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary Angela Rayner met regional Mayors at No10 North in Manchester on:- Wednesday, 10 September 2026, as the Government outlined plans to give Mayors and other eligible strategic authorities the power to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy.

The move could provide tourism hotspots with a new source of funding for local priorities, but it also raises an important question:- who should pay towards the additional pressures created by tourism?

How would the visitor levy work?

Rather than imposing a standard charge on every visitor, the Government plans for the levy to apply to overnight accommodation.

The charge would be calculated as a percentage of the cost of accommodation rather than a flat fee, with the intention of avoiding a disproportionate impact on cheaper stays.

Regional leaders would have discretion over whether to introduce a levy and how the money raised should be invested locally, following consultation with residents and businesses.

The announcement follows a Government consultation which ran from:- 26 November 2025 until 18 February 2026 and considered issues including which types of accommodation should be included, how rates should be calculated and how the levy should be administered.

Similar visitor charging schemes already operate elsewhere.

Manchester launched its Accommodation Business Improvement District in 2023, with a £1 per room, per night City Visitor Charge, while Liverpool introduced its own Accommodation BID charge of £2 per room, per night, plus VAT, in June 2025.

Scotland has also legislated to allow local visitor levies, while tourist taxes and visitor charges are commonplace in destinations elsewhere in Europe.

Who benefits?

Supporters argue that tourism brings significant economic benefits but can also place additional pressure on public spaces, transport and infrastructure.

A visitor levy offers authorities a way of raising dedicated funds from the visitor economy rather than expecting local Council taxpayers alone to meet those costs.

Money generated could potentially be reinvested into priorities such as public transport, public spaces, tourism and events.

Accommodation-based schemes also have the advantage of using existing hotel, guest house and booking systems to collect charges rather than requiring an entirely new physical charging network.

But could there be unintended consequences?

Any additional charge inevitably raises questions for the hospitality industry.

Increasing the overall price of an overnight stay could make trips more expensive, potentially affecting hotels and other accommodation providers as well as businesses which depend on overnight visitors, including pubs, restaurants, theatres, music venues and other parts of the night-time economy.

There are also questions surrounding campsites, caravan parks and motorhome pitches.

In areas already experiencing problems with unauthorised camping and roadside overnight stays, an additional charge on official sites could potentially make avoiding paid accommodation more attractive to price-sensitive visitors.

Irresponsible wild camping can bring its own problems, including rubbish, human waste, habitat damage and illegal campfires.

On the other hand, revenue generated through a visitor levy could potentially help authorities tackle those very problems by investing in facilities and services used by visitors.

What about people who aren't tourists?

1 of the challenges with any visitor charging system is ensuring that people who are not tourists are not unfairly caught by it.

An accommodation levy largely avoids many of the problems that would arise from a road-based charging system because it targets overnight stays rather than simply recording vehicles entering an area.

A hypothetical system based on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), for example, would create much more complicated questions.

Delivery drivers, taxi drivers, tradespeople, care workers, night-shift employees and residents visiting friends or relatives could all travel through popular tourist areas without actually being tourists.

Road diversions could potentially create further complications.

Authorities would therefore require extensive exemption or:- ‘whitelisting’ systems if vehicle movements were ever used as the basis for a visitor charge, creating additional administration for Councils, workers and businesses.

ANPR infrastructure would also introduce costs for cameras, software, administration, databases and appeals, as well as raising questions surrounding the collection and retention of vehicle movement data.

At the same time, such technology could provide useful information about traffic flows, congestion, visitor routes and seasonal travel patterns, potentially helping transport planners make better decisions.

It could also capture day visitors, motorhomes and campervans which use local roads and facilities without staying in commercial accommodation — something an overnight accommodation levy would not do.

However, it would still fail to capture visitors arriving by public transport or on foot.

Protecting vulnerable residents

There are also important questions about people staying in accommodation through necessity rather than tourism.

Government proposals have included exemptions for emergency accommodation, homeless shelters and registered Gypsy and Traveller sites being used as primary residences.

Clear exemption arrangements are important because people may need temporary accommodation for reasons entirely unrelated to tourism.

Residents can also be forced from their homes following emergencies such as fires, flooding, burst pipes or structural damage, potentially requiring temporary hotel accommodation.

How local schemes deal with different circumstances and exemptions will therefore be an important consideration as authorities develop any future proposals.

Could the money make a difference?

The central argument in favour of visitor levies is straightforward: destinations attracting large numbers of tourists could raise additional money and reinvest it into the places those visitors come to enjoy.

Manchester's existing accommodation charge has helped fund initiatives including additional street cleaning, destination marketing and work to attract events and conferences.

Liverpool's Accommodation BID similarly raises funds through overnight accommodation, with the money intended to support the city's visitor economy.

The debate is therefore unlikely to be simply about whether tourists should pay more.

It will also be about how much they should pay, who should be exempt, how the money should be collected and — perhaps most importantly — exactly where that money goes.

For seaside destinations and visitor hotspots, those questions could become increasingly important as regional leaders consider whether to use their new powers.

Would you support a visitor levy if the money raised was reinvested locally? Or do you think an additional charge risks discouraging visitors and damaging local businesses?

We'd like to hear your views.