NE1 — the Business Improvement District operating across Newcastle — had pushed for the removal of a nightly surcharge that required any venue trading after midnight to pay a yearly fee ranging from £299 to £4,400, a scheme that had accumulated over £3 million in revenue from its 2013 launch to the point at which the levy was brought to an end.
A unanimous vote by Newcastle City Council's Liberal Democrat administration, held on Wednesday 7 October, brought the charge to an end without opposition from any of its members.
During 2021, as pandemic restrictions began to lift, Vaulkhard was among those who took their arguments into the public arena. Speaking to a broadcaster, Vaulkhard — who runs five venues across the city — put the removal of what he viewed as an unwarranted financial burden at the centre of his remarks, while pointing to a healthier working dynamic taking shape between the council and the hospitality sector. He shared credit between the politicians and NE1, noted that operators with late licences stood to gain, and gave equal weight to what he described as a fresh readiness on both sides to work together in good faith.
The Core — the Newcastle Hospitality Association, also referred to as the NE1 Hospitality Group and serving as the collective voice for city-centre and regional hospitality businesses across Newcastle upon Tyne — also expressed a positive response to the decision, with a spokesperson noting that ongoing dialogue and engagement with those involved had created conditions seen as favourable for the wider hospitality sector in the city.
Looking back at the conditions that existed when Newcastle's Late Night Levy was introduced, Vaulkhard noted that the policy had a more justifiable basis then — venues licensed for up to 2,500 people were dispersing crowds onto city streets at 2:30am, a pattern that, in the view of those running hospitality businesses, generated tangible operational demands on police, street-cleaning crews, and taxi services during the early hours.
NE1 head of operations Nick Kemp described the annual £4,400 fee as worthwhile for hospitality venues, noting that customer welfare and satisfaction stood to improve, while also acknowledging that businesses across the city's hospitality sector were navigating an environment of ongoing cost pressures, tax obligations, and regulatory demands.
The levy had become increasingly difficult to defend as the night-time economy shifted well beyond what existed when it was first introduced, according to those who argued for its removal, with post-Covid trading data showing that standalone nightclubs had largely been replaced by a wider spread of pubs, bars, and restaurants, the majority of which drew their busiest custom before midnight. The levy remained anchored to late-opening licences and a property's rateable value rather than the volume of after-hours trade actually taking place.
Licence fees across Vaulkhard's group ran to around £20,000 a year in total, he noted, with individual venues absorbing anywhere from a few hundred pounds up to £4,400 annually — a sum he described as manageable in isolation yet difficult to justify when no corresponding benefit flowed back to operators. He also raised the issue of premises that had already wound down their late-night activity, leaving those businesses facing a choice between continuing to pay for authorisation they no longer used or placing their licence status in jeopardy.
The position taken by both the police and the council drew mounting scrutiny, with Vaulkhard questioning the rationale behind the levy by asking what, in practical terms, distinguished trading at one minute past midnight from trading one minute before it, and why that distinction justified the charge at all. He also drew attention to the Theatre Royal as a venue that would have faced a bill of £4,500 on account of its rateable value alone, despite having no meaningful call on late-night policing or street-calming resources.
Vaulkhard pointed out that around 70% of the LNL revenue flowed to Northumbria Police while the remaining 30% went to the council, and that although both bodies stood to benefit financially from retaining it, the arrangement lacked justification in his view. He added that the council deserved recognition for hearing out the case and being willing to weigh whether holding onto that funding was the right course.
The budget gap, a statement made clear, would need to be addressed through other means. Vaulkhard added that operators in comparable circumstances tended to bear the heavier burden when tax disputes arose, and that receiving formal confirmation from an authority that a particular charge did not apply to them carried real practical value.
NE1's Kemp described the outcome as a joint achievement, noting that members of The Core had worked alongside NE1's BID team to press for the changes, while also acknowledging that the industry had received recognition — along with a clearer understanding of what the process could fairly deliver. The council's openness to hearing those concerns and acting on them drew a positive response from Kemp.
Sustaining and building on Newcastle's standing as a place worth visiting, working in, and enjoying — particularly through what the hospitality sector provides — was described as a priority.
