This month, I went to Corsica Studios in Elephant and Castle, for the first and probably only time. The club was rocking, the sound system was loud and by the end of the night the dance floor felt like it might collapse under the weight of everyone jumping.
Standing in line, those I spoke to were excited that they could, together as a collective community, watch a sold-out show in central London on a Tuesday night. They also complained that it would be the last such time for the foreseeable future.
Southwark Council and developer Delancey are in the middle of a £1.5bn expansion of the surrounding area. Negotiations have failed to broker a compromise that would allow Corsica, open since 2002, to continue operating as it currently is. The club will close at the end of the month. The plan is to reopen as a ‘multi-use cultural venue’ in 2027, although the exact form it will take remains somewhat unclear.
Corsica is not an anomaly. Britain is losing its nightclubs to a perfect storm of policy neglect: aggressive business rates, planning law that prioritizes residential aspiration over recreational infrastructure, and licensing regulations designed for public order rather than economic growth.
Subscribe to the New Statesman today for just £1 a week.
In the center of attention requested data from the Office for National Statistics on the number of nightclub closures in each local authority. Between 2015 and 2025, the UK lost around 1,940 licensed clubs – a drop of 26.2 per cent.
The huge social, cultural and economic importance the sector plays in Britain’s urban landscapes is undeniable. In 2023, the night-time economy contributed £93.7 billion to the UK economy and supported nearly three million jobs. It supports some of the country’s most important industries. Music, for example, employs more people than the pharmaceutical, steel and aerospace sectors combined. Yet successive governments, while enthusiastic about promoting ‘Brand Britain’ through its cultural exports, from the Beatles and Queen to Little Simz and Fred Again, have failed to demonstrate a similar passion for the scenes and environments that spawned them.
Last month, in one conference organized by the Nightlife Industry Association (NTIA), former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner called on Keir Starmer to appoint a “nighttime economy minister” to protect bars, clubs and venues. Just one week later, the ONS DECLARING it would no longer analyze data related to the sector. There was no mention of the nightlife industry, or even the hospitality sector more broadly, in the last spring statement.
Simone d’Antonio, a policy expert at URBACT, which has supported over 100 European cities in developing night-time economy strategies, sees Britain’s policy gap as a deliberate choice: “The quality of public debate does not match the quality of the policy response.” It tells of Berlin’s “Club Culture Day,” where clubs open during the day for guided tours. “People tend to complain less when they know that behind this club is not just entertainment, not just cultural work – it’s about the right to live at night.”
There seems to be no such recognition in current politics. TREASURY DESIGNATED this year, every pub and live music venue in England will get a 15 per cent cut in new business rates from 1 April, worth an average of £1,650 each, with bills frozen in real terms for a further two years. The Government has said that additional funding will be released for Scotland and Wales in due course. Nightclubs were excluded from the permanent aid package. NTIA It provides nightclubs with a rateable value of £100,000 will face bills rising from £28,800 to £43,000.
D’Antonio admits club closures are a global problem, not just a UK failure. People don’t go out as often, spend less, choose different activities. “The factors are different and interrelated, changing behaviours, changing consumption habits, the fact that it’s so expensive to go out,” he says. Overnight policies cannot change these trends. But they can make the situation better or worse – and UK policy is leaning towards the latter.
Nightlife is under strain due to rising business rates, high VAT and layers of regulations and licensing requirements. The pressures are also less the result of local government reluctance, more a state of hyperactivity.
Licensing Act 2003 handles all licensed premises identically despite different operational realities. Local authorities assess applications based on four licensing objectives – prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm – without permission to weigh the economic or cultural value of the underlying facilities.
In particular, cumulative impact policies (CIPs) allow councils to block new nightclub licenses in certain areas, creating a presumption of refusal for new applications. In Middlesbrough, a CIP coverage the city center where 46 percent of nightclubs operate. Between 2017 and 2022, the council approved 19 new entertainment licenses in the area – for bowling alleys, restaurants and micro-pubs – but rejected any applications for nightclubs, citing the risks of disorder.
Sacha Lord, a former overnight economy adviser for Greater Manchester and co-founder of the Warehouse Project, says the current legislation is “completely one-sided”. “What is not considered is the economic benefit you will bring to the area, the jobs you will create, the cultural benefits you will bring. It is in desperate need of updating.”
God has a particular gripe with business rates. While the future 15 percent discount in pubs from the government was welcome, he believed it was “fraudulent”. “Hospitality across the country has already seen bills rise. A 15 per cent cut in business rates when bills have already risen (well beyond that level) leaves premises significantly worse off than before.” He points to a VAT cut similar to the temporary reductions of the COVID era as something to fall back on, and noted that the government has is not reduced VAT on beers, spirits and wine.
The late night tax, similarly, applies to premises in England and Wales licensed to sell alcohol. The local authority chooses the length of time within this period that the tax will apply – usually between midnight and 6am. The net revenue collected goes towards the costs of controlling the late-night economy, but creates an additional financial burden for countries already struggling with business rates and operational costs.
Transportation compounds the problem. London introduced the Night Tube in 2016, but the service remains limited on Fridays and Saturdays to five lines. Greater Manchester extended night buses through Transport for Greater Manchester. Devolution, God argues, is the key. “How can we call ourselves the 24-hour party city when our trams stop at 11?” He is clear that night transport is not only about the needs of the freshers, but also of the workers. “The pay is not good in hospitality – you work for eight hours and then you have to pay for a taxi home.”
But transport is only one front. When local government prioritizes the whims of developers and new residents over incumbents, the damage can be profound, as Manchester’s Night & Day cafe discovered. The place, open for more than three decades, had no problems until new residents complained about the noise.
Manchester City Council served abatement notices rather than admit its planning failure. In court, it was FOUND a developer had converted an adjacent warehouse into apartments in 2000 without sound mitigation. Night & Day won, but was ordered to reduce noise levels, limiting the club’s programming.
The ‘change agent’ principle is designed to reduce this burden. Under the National Planning Policy Framework, anyone who introduces a new land use becomes responsible for managing the impact of that change.
But this guidance is voluntary. Developers often challenge the principle at planning commissions because the guidance has no legal weight. Even in a city with an active economic policy at night, places cannot be protected under the current law. Scotland, by comparison, has done well statutory law.
Ariel Palitz, the first night mayor for New York City, pioneered a different solution. She argued that most residents who complain simply want the noise to stop, not the site closed, but the current system denies them that option. “They’re not even giving the resident the opportunity to be able to complain without causing some kind of enforcement chaos and retaliation,” she said, adding that what was missing was a process that gave countries “the respect and the opportunity to resolve an issue.”
Her solution was MEND – Mediation of Neighborhood Elevation Disputes – a free program that connects residents and venues with neutral professional mediators. Rather than route complaints anonymously through the police, MEND investigates directly at the source of the problem: what practical improvements the venue can make and how to leave behind a direct line of communication between neighbors rather than a court order. For Palitz, it reflects something deeper. “If you respected this industry, if you recognized what it contributes on an economic and cultural level, you would treat it differently. It’s about a change in perspective — seeing it as an asset, not a liability.”
Similarly, the Mayor of London welcomed a landmark report from an independent Nightlife Taskforce, set up in February 2025 in response to growing pressure on the capital’s venues. The report, the most comprehensive assessment of London’s nightlife ever produced, outlined 23 recommendations to protect an economy that contributes £139 billion a year to the capital, including a London-wide licensing standard and a new £300,000 nightlife commission. Westminster, so far, has offered no equivalent response.
Where local authorities have acted, the night-time economy shows resilience. But councils hit a ceiling: they can’t override the crime prevention framework of the Licensing Act, can’t exempt nightclubs from business rates and can’t force developers to insulate new buildings. Westminster has the legislative power to support what cities are already trying. It’s choosing not to, watching the premises close one by one.
Content from our partners
