English mayors and Foundation Strategic Authority leaders will be allowed to impose a new tax on overnight stays without a national cap on the rate, despite most respondents to the government's consultation supporting one.
The new Overnight Visitor Levy will apply to paid accommodation such as hotels, B&Bs and short term lets.
The government says the money can be used to support transport, public spaces, tourism and other local priorities.
But the consultation response shows that ministers rejected the majority view on several of the most important parts of the scheme.
Of respondents, 58 per cent supported a national cap on the maximum rate.
The government decided not to introduce one.
Sixty per cent opposed the government's preferred model of charging by percentage.
The government chose it anyway.
And when asked whether accommodation providers should be legally responsible for paying the levy to the authority, more respondents opposed the proposal than supported it.
Consultations are not referendums and governments are entitled to reject the responses they receive.
But the figures complicate the presentation of the policy as a locally driven settlement shaped by consultation.
No national ceiling
The government wants strategic authorities to decide whether to introduce the levy and to set the rate locally.
It considered putting a national ceiling on that rate.
The consultation response says 706 of the 1,223 respondents, or 58 per cent, supported a cap, while 19 per cent opposed one and 23 per cent did not answer the question.
Ministers rejected the idea, arguing that a cap "could create market-distorting effects, such as the cap operating as a default rate regardless of local market conditions."
That means Parliament is being asked to create a new local tax power without setting a maximum percentage that can be charged.
The government's argument is that local leaders should decide what is appropriate for their own areas.
That gives mayors and strategic authority leaders greater fiscal freedom.
It also means the eventual cost to visitors will depend heavily on where they stay.
Government chose the percentage model despite opposition
The levy will be charged as a percentage of the accommodation price rather than as a flat nightly fee.
The government's stated case is explicitly about protecting cheaper stays: it says charging by percentage will "protect budget holidays" because a cheap room attracts a smaller charge than an expensive one.
But the consultation response shows strong opposition.
Sixty per cent of respondents opposed a percentage model.
Only 21 per cent supported it, with 19 per cent giving no answer.
Accommodation providers raised concerns about administrative complexity and market distortion.
Ministers decided the proportionality argument outweighed those concerns.
The consequence is that the tax will automatically rise when accommodation prices rise.
That includes peak periods such as school holidays.
The government's own assessment records concerns that families could face higher charges when room prices are already elevated during those periods.
Hotels and landlords will become tax collectors
Hotels, B&Bs and other accommodation businesses will be responsible for paying the levy to strategic authorities and mayors.
The government says it will work with businesses to make the system as simple as possible.
But the tax will still create a new administrative obligation.
Providers will need to calculate the amount due, keep records and submit payments through the system eventually established by local authorities.
The consultation found more opposition than support for placing the legal liability on accommodation providers: 46 per cent disagreed, against 28 per cent in favour and 26 per cent giving no answer, citing compliance risks and administrative burdens.
The government nevertheless retained that model.
For large hotel groups, adapting booking software may be manageable.
For independent B&Bs and businesses offering holiday lets, another tax registration and reporting system may be more significant.
Not every taxed stay will be a holiday
The language around the policy repeatedly describes visitors and tourists.
But the tax is based primarily on paid accommodation, not on the reason for the stay.
That distinction matters.
A hotel room may be occupied by a tourist.
It may also be occupied by somebody travelling for work, attending a funeral or visiting a relative in hospital.
The government has proposed national exemptions for some accommodation that is clearly not for tourism or not commercial, including temporary accommodation, shelters, refuges and campsites, with local leaders free to add further exemptions of their own.
But it has deliberately resisted building large numbers of exemptions for particular kinds of visitor into the national system because that would require accommodation businesses to determine why somebody is travelling.
That keeps administration simpler.
It also means people who do not regard themselves as tourists may still pay a visitor levy.
Disabled travellers were identified as a possible problem
The government's own consultation response identifies another unresolved issue.
Respondents warned that accessible hotel rooms can sometimes cost more than standard accommodation.
Because the levy is charged as a percentage, a higher room price could produce a higher tax.
The government says it does not hold data comparing the price of accessible rooms with rooms that are not accessible in England.
Respondents also raised the position of disabled travellers who need a carer to occupy a separate room, warning they "may also be disproportionately affected under both flat rate and percentage-based levy models."
The final impact will depend on exemptions individual authorities choose to introduce.
That leaves another important part of the policy to local discretion.
Revenue does not have to be spent only on tourism
The government says levy proceeds can support local priorities including high streets, transport, public spaces and attractions.
That means this is broader than a tourism tax whose proceeds are reserved for tourism alone.
Local leaders will determine how revenues are used.
That flexibility may allow money to be directed where visitor pressure is greatest.
But it also means accommodation businesses cannot assume every pound collected will be returned directly to the tourism sector.
The government says authorities will have to consult locally and publish plans before introducing a levy.
Mayors and Foundation Strategic Authority leaders are expected to set out spending plans by early 2028.
The government is creating the tax before the collection system is finished
The broad policy has been settled.
The machinery has not.
Government says it will provide strategic authorities with powers to administer and collect the tax, together with a compliance framework, with legislation to follow.
But detailed questions around registration, enforcement, package holidays, booking platforms and local administration are still being worked through.
That creates a familiar pattern.
The political announcement comes first.
The operational detail follows.
The success of the levy will therefore depend less on the principle of charging visitors and more on the system eventually built to collect it.
If administration is cheap and revenues are substantial, the model may give local authorities a useful new source of funding.
If compliance costs are high and rates vary widely between neighbouring areas, the burden could become more visible than the benefit.
The consultation tells a different story from the press release
The government presents the levy as another step in shifting power away from Westminster.
There is a coherent argument for that.
English local government has comparatively little autonomy to raise taxes, and visitor levies are common internationally.
But the detailed consultation response is more uncomfortable than the announcement.
Most respondents opposed the percentage model.
Most supported a national cap.
More opposed placing legal liability on accommodation providers than supported it.
Government chose all three anyway.
That does not invalidate the policy.
It does show why the word "consultation" should never be confused with consent.
The real test will come when the first mayor publishes a rate.
At that point the argument stops being about devolution in principle.
It becomes much simpler:
how much extra will a night away cost, how much will the tax raise, how much will it cost to administer, and where will the money actually go?