Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

Opinion – Brent’s tourist tax makes more sense than you’d think

Wembley’s three-million-strong crowds bring in noise, traffic, and little benefit to locals. Brent Council’s hotel levy is a smart and overdue response.

Granted, Brent isn’t exactly the first place that springs to mind when you think of tourist taxes. It’s not central London and it’s certainly not the picturesque Cotswolds. But the borough does play host to something few other areas do – a global entertainment destination that pulls in millions – before promptly spitting them back out.

Wembley Stadium and the OVO Arena together draw over three million visitors per year. On any given event day, a sleepy outer London borough becomes a temporary city. Public transport is overrun, streets become littered, and late-night disruption torments residents.

All the while, hotels and promoters cash in, drawing in more and more tourists whilst upending the lives of those who live in the area. It’s Brent’s council who are ultimately left to deal with the aftermath of these tourism spikes, so it’s really no surprise that they’ve now proposed a small visitor levy on hotel stays – £1 to £2 per room, per night – to be reinvested into local services.

Despite this being both a modest and remarkably sensible suggestion, Brent Council has already been on the receiving end of some pretty significant backlash.

As soon as people caught wind of potential spikes in their hotel costs, negativity began sprouting across social media. Coverage of the proposal has framed it as a significant step backwards for tourism in the area – just another form of anti-tourist red tape that will ultimately lead to unrest between locals and visitors.

But it’s crucial to recognise that a tax like this one isn’t aimed at tourists in the cultural sense. This isn’t about penalising backpackers or families on sightseeing trips. It’s about managing the fallout from a specific kind of visitor — one arriving en masse for a sport or music event.

Brent is hardly breaking new ground here. Manchester introduced a similar scheme in 2023 which is said to have raised £2.8m in its first year. Edinburgh is expected to follow. Across Europe, these levies are standard, and framed as a means of controlling overtourism.

Brent’s proposal is less about volume and more about volatility, as the Wembley effect isn’t a constant negative influence on locals, but rather an occasional (albeit explosive) one.

Brent has one of the highest poverty rates in London and a chronically overstretched council budget. Public services like street cleaning and policing are already operating on a knife edge, and when major events roll through, the burden on these systems spikes.

The council estimates the visitor tax could raise around £2 million a year, which is enough to make a visible difference.

According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, (LDRS), Brent Council is exploring ways of ensuring ‘the benefit of our world class events are felt by all residents.’

The influx of visitors certainly brings economic benefits, with each non-sporting event at Wembley Stadium boosting the local economy by around £4.35m. But this is often overshadowed by the immediate impact on residents through increased noise, congestion and waste.

Comment
byu/tylerthe-theatre from discussion
inlondon

Opponents claim the levy could discourage overnight stays and harm local businesses. But the numbers don’t back that up.

Tourists pay far more in Amsterdam or Rome without batting an eye. For fans spending hundreds on tickets, travel and beer, a couple of quid on top of their hotel rate is hardly make-or-break. If anything, the levy formalises what should be a standard cost of visiting high-footfall areas.

The pushback also reveals a deeper discomfort with the idea of local areas asserting boundaries against the flow of capital and consumption.

What makes Brent’s case particularly strong is its specificity. This isn’t a blanket tax on tourism – it’s targeted at a small pocket of hyper-concentrated footfall, with the funds ring fenced for reinvestment in the area.

Of course, no one likes new taxes. But the visitor levy is a small fee tied to massive impact for a city that’s long expected its outer boroughs to carry the load with little thanks or support.

I’d argue that if you can afford £120 for a concert ticket, you can afford another £1.50 to keep the streets clean.

Accessibility