Agenda Document Pack - Economy and Infrastructure Committee - 19/11/2025
Perth and Kinross Council · 19 November 2025
Back to Economy and Infrastructure Committee — 19 November 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Ambition | Compassion | Integrity Our vision is for a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality Council Building 2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH 12/11/2025 A hybrid meeting of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee will be held in the Council Chamber on Wednesday, 19 November 2025 at 13:00. If you have any queries please contact Democratic Services on (01738) 475000 or email Committee@pkc.gov.uk. THOMAS GLEN Chief Executive Those attending the meeting are requested to ensure that all notifications are silent on their device and other devices are in silent mode. Please note that the meeting will be broadcast online and recorded. The recording will be publicly available on the Council’s website following the meeting. Members: Councillor Eric Drysdale (Convener) Councillor Jack Welch (Vice-Convener) Councillor Hugh Anderson Bailie Rhona Brock Councillor Steven Carr Councillor Stewart Donaldson Councillor John Duff Councillor Angus Forbes Councillor Ken Harvey Councillor Noah Khogali Councillor Ian Massie Councillor Willie Robertson Councillor Frank Smith Councillor Colin Stewart Councillor Alan Watt Page 1 of 86
Page 2
Page 2 of 86
Page 3
Economy and Infrastructure Committee Wednesday, 19 November 2025 Agenda Members are reminded of their obligation to declare any financial or non- financial interest which they may have in any item on this agenda in accordance with the councillors’ code of conduct. 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES/SUBSTITUTES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3 MINUTE OF MEETING OF THE ECONOMY AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE OF 27 AUGUST 2025 FOR APPROVAL (copy herewith) 5 - 6 4 OUTSTANDING BUSINESS STATEMENT (copy herewith 25/309) 7 - 10 5 VIEWLANDS SCHOOL EXCLUSION ZONE Report by Strategic Lead - Environment and Infrastructure (copy herewith 25/310) 11 - 46 6 PERTH AND KINROSS PLACE BRANDING Report by Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning (copy herewith 25/311) 47 - 72 7 VISITOR LEVY SCHEME - EARLY ENGAGEMENT AND FUTURE TIMESCALES Report by Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning (copy herewith 25/312) 73 - 86 Page 3 of 86
Page 4
Page 4 of 86
Page 5
Economy and Infrastructure Committee Minute of hybrid meeting of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee held in the Council Chambers on Wednesday 27 August 2025 at 9.30am. Present: Councillors E Drysdale, J Welch, Bailie C Ahern (substituting for Councillor A Forbes), H Anderson, Bailie R Brock, S Donaldson, J Duff, K Harvey, N Khogali, G Laing, I Massie (substituting for S Carr), Bailie C McLaren (substituting for W Robertson), F Smith, C Stewart and A Watt. In Attendance: C Mailer, Depute Chief Executive, S Merone, Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning; S MacDonald (up to and including Item 6), B Murray, K Easton, D Sosa, N Sworowski, R Wills (all Economy, Development and Planning); F Crofts, Strategic Lead – Environment and Infrastructure; C Daly, (up to and including Item 4), D McKeown (up to and including Item 4) (all Environment and Infrastructure); J Guild, S Hendry, A Brown and R Ramsay (all Legal and Governance). Apologies: Councillors S Carr, A Forbes and W Robertson. Councillor E Drysdale, Convener, Presiding. 1. Welcome and Apologies Convener welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for absence were noted as above. 2. Declarations of Interest There were no Declarations of Interests in terms of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. 3. Minute of Meeting of Economy and Infrastructure Committee of 28 May 2025 The minute of the meeting of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee of 28 May 2025 was submitted and approved as a correct record. 4. Outstanding Business Statement Resolved: The status of actions in the Outstanding Business Statement (25/209) be noted and completed actions removed accordingly. 5. Advertisement Control Non-Statutory Planning Guidance There was submitted a report by Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning (25/210) seeking approval to finalise and adopt the updated non- statutory Advertisement Control Planning Guidance Note to support the Local Development Plan. 3 Page 5 of 86
Page 6
Resolved: (i) The updated Advertisement Control Planning Guidance, be approved. (ii) Authority be delegated to the Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning to make any necessary amendments to the format and layout of the guidance, and to adapt it for publication in accessible formats including online and on paper. 6. Council Support to Businesses There was submitted a report by Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning (25/211) providing a series of actions and recommendations which enhance interactions between the Council and businesses, with the aim to build on and improve our business-friendly approach and create a supportive environment with our partnership to improve our strong business start-up and growth performance. Resolved: (i) A ‘Business-friendly’ Cross-Service Officer Group, chaired by the Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning, be established. (ii) It be agreed that the Council review its interactions with the Local Employability Partnership (LEP) to improve employability support services including impact tracking and continue to facilitate synergies between LEP and Perth and Kinross Economic Partnership. (iii) A full review of the Business Gateway contract arrangements be carried out by the Business, Place and Investment team and a full delivery options appraisal and report be brought back to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee in August 2026. (iv) An update on the Commercial Property Investment Programme (CPIP) be provided to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee in Spring 2026. (There was a short recess and the committee reconvened at 10.40am). 7. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Supplementary Guidance There was submitted a report by Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning (25/212) (1) providing a summary of changes necessary to the Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Supplementary Guidance due to the introduction of National Planning Framework 4 and current practice; and (2) seeking consent to proceed to public consultation. Resolved: It be agreed that the draft Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Supplementary Guidance and Strategic Environmental Assessment screening report proceed to public consultation. Page 6 of 86
Page 7
ECONOMY & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE OUTSTANDING BUSINESS STATEMENT (OBS) (Report No. 25/309) Please note that this statement sets out outstanding decisions of this committee along with an update and estimated completion date. Actions which are overdue are shaded for ease of reference. Where an update reflects that an action is complete then the Committee’s agreement will be sought to its removal from the OBS. No Minute Reference Subject Title Outstanding Action Update Lead Officer /Service Action Due / Complete Action Expected 27. 28 May 2025 Item 8 School Exclusion Zone Update Committee to consider, in conjunction with relevant officers, a refresh or review of Safer Routes to School Plans to reflect new residential developments. Climate Change funding has recently been awarded to support a wider piece of work around school road safety and sustainable travel which will include a review of existing school travel plans. There will be a particular focus on early years to promote and encourage more sustainable travel methods with the potential for spend to save investment through reduced home to school transport costs. This is a medium-term project which would aim to report back on findings by summer / autumn 2026. David McArthur / Craig Daly DUE Summer / Autumn 2026 4 Page 7 of 86
Page 8
No Minute Reference Subject Title Outstanding Action Update Lead Officer /Service Action Due / Complete Action Expected 28. 28 May 2025 Item 8 School Exclusion Zone Update Update on the public consultation exercise on the proposed changes to the Viewlands school exclusion zone. To ensure all parties have an opportunity to comment on the proposed Viewlands school exclusion zone, further consultation will be undertaken with parents and residents from the start of September and conclude by the end of the month. This will involve e-mail to parents and a maildrop to residents within and adjacent to the trialled zone. The proposal is for the access restriction to be reduced in area to cover those streets closer to the campus. Responses would be collated in early October and with a report presented to E&I on 19 November 2025. The Road Safety Team will be liaising with the Head Teachers from the end of August about possible engagement with school pupils in early Daryl McKeown / Craig Daly COMPLETE 19 November 2025 Page 8 of 86
Page 9
No Minute Reference Subject Title Outstanding Action Update Lead Officer /Service Action Due / Complete Action Expected September. A progress meeting is also scheduled with the Ward Councillors for the end of August. Discussions have taken place with Police Scotland about an enforcement strategy should the new exclusion zone be installed. This would include an information campaign by PKC at the start of each term followed by enforcement, although this latter part will be subject to Police resources 29. 27 August 2025 Item 5 Advertisement Control Non- Statutory Planning Guidance Use of illuminated advertising for Council events and local tourism to be explored. Updates provided by Dante Sosa, Planning Officer and Serge Merone forwarded to Committee Members via email on 6 October 2025. S Merone / D Sosa COMPLETE 19 November 2025 30. 27 August 2025 Item 7 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Supplementary Guidance Communication Strategy to include newspaper coverage with PKC postal address for response to ensure capture of rural communities. An advertisement for the renewable’s consultation including the postal address was placed in the Perthshire Advertiser on 19 September 2025. S Merone / R Wills COMPLETE 19 November 2025 Page 9 of 86
Page 10
No Minute Reference Subject Title Outstanding Action Update Lead Officer /Service Action Due / Complete Action Expected 31. 27 August 2025 Item 7 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Supplementary Guidance Mechanism for securing community benefit contributions to be explored. As part of the Scalable Cities project, a website will be launched early 2026 to support community groups develop and implement community energy projects. We will include a section on community benefits and best practice for negotiations between community groups and developers. This will include developing and implementing their own community energy projects and also advice on how to work with developers to benefit from energy projects in their local area. S Merone / S MacDonald COMPLETE 19 November 2025 Page 10 of 86
Page 11
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality Committee or Board: Economy & Infrastructure Committee Date of Meeting: 19 November 2025 Report Title: Viewlands School Exclusion Zone Report Number: 25/310 Report Author: Daryl McKeown, Senior Engineer, Traffic & Network Organisational Lead: Fraser Crofts, Strategic Lead – Environment & Infrastructure 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this Report is to provide an update on the public consultation on a proposed amended Traffic Regulation Order for a reduced school exclusion zone area around Viewlands Primary School. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Context 4. Main Issues 5. Proposals 6. Conclusion 7. Impact and Value Assessment 8. Appendices 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee: 2.1 Notes the responses from the public consultation. 2.2 Approves the decision to promote a new Traffic Regulation Order for a reduced school exclusion zone. 5 Page 11 of 86
Page 12
3. Background/Context 3.1 In May 2025, the E&I Committee approved the creation of permanent Traffic Regulation Orders for school exclusion zones at Blairgowrie Community Campus and at Guildtown, Inchview and Kinloch Rannoch primary schools, and the creation of an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order to trial an exclusion zone at Tulloch Primary School. 3.2 The school exclusion zone project was a response to road safety concerns from schools, parents and residents about traffic levels at the school gates. There were two objectives to installing the school exclusion zones – (i) to reduce congestion, and the associated road safety risk, at the school gate and (ii) discourage dependence on vehicular transport by enabling people to walk to and from school. 3.3 The school exclusion zone is an access restriction, rather than a parking restriction. Unauthorised vehicles are not permitted to drive in, out or around the school streets when the scheme is in operation. Signs are located at the entrance to the schemes which have flashing amber beacons to indicate when the scheme is in operation. Only those vehicles displaying a valid permit are exempt from the access restriction. Vehicles parked within the zone without a permit are entitled to remain but cannot move until the operating time finishes. 3.4 As a school exclusion zone is an access restriction, entering the restricted area without a valid permit is a traffic violation and a matter for Police Scotland. Similar to speed limits, local roads authorities can introduce such restrictions but enforcement remains the responsibility of the Police 3.5 The exclusion zone around Viewlands Primary School, Fairview School and Perth Academy was trialled in 2022 as part of our Spaces for People (SFP) programme. The SFP funding from the Scottish Government was to facilitate increased pedestrian activity during the early stages of the Covid pandemic. 4. Main Issues 4.1 While most exclusion zones resulted in reduced traffic movements around most of the schools, the Viewlands school exclusion zone has been problematic from the outset. While many parents voiced support for the Viewlands trial, and compliance by drivers was generally good in the initial months, compliance rates steadily decreased in the following months. Current traffic figures on streets within the zone are similar to pre-exclusion zone levels. 4.2 For any restriction on the road network to work, the public must accept or understand its basis to exist and comply accordingly. It should also be appropriate for the road environment. There are two factors to consider at Viewlands school exclusion zone. Firstly, the zone has multiple accesses which enables drivers to easily travel into and through it. Secondly, there has been a lack of consistent enforcement. Page 12 of 86
Page 13
4.3 From the outset, Police Scotland’s stated position is that they will not routinely enforce the school exclusion zone but will respond to community concerns about road safety as, and when, resources permit. It is their same position as 30mph speed limits and 20mph speed limits. Restrictions should be appropriate for the road environment in order to be self-regulating and should not rely on a continued Police presence. 4.4 The Viewlands school exclusion zone in its current configuration is impracticable. In the E&I report on May 2025, the Council did not recommend removing the access restriction completely as this would simply reintroduce the congestion and road safety problems at the school gates. It was recommended that the number of streets within the access restriction be reduced to cover the area closer to the schools. 4.5 Although these recommended changes were based on the public consultation exercise last year, they represented a major alteration to the exclusion zone. As a result, it was agreed to carry out a public engagement exercise prior to the commencement of any work on a new Traffic Regulation Order. This was to include a mail-drop to residents in those streets within and adjacent to the original zone and electronic communication through the schools to the parents of school pupils. 4.6 Information letters were mail-dropped to the residents in mid-June. Electronic letters were sent to the three Head Teachers but only two sets were distributed as it was close to the end of the school term. This initial consultation ended in mid-July but only eight responses (from the 321 notified) were received from residents and none from parents. 4.7 This is significantly less than the 136 people who responded to the public consultation at the end of the original trial. The results from that consultation are summarised as follows: • Remove the school exclusion zone 62 people (46%) • Amend the school exclusion zone 17 people (12.5%) • Retain the school exclusion zone 55 people (40%) • Other comments/Neutral 2 people (1.5%) 4.8 Almost all the people who wanted the zone removed or amended were parents or residents adjacent to the zone. Almost all the people who wanted the zone retained were residents within the zone. 4.9 It was decided to re-engage with all residents and parents once everyone was settled into the new school term. In addition to a re-run of the residents’ mail- drop and the parents’ email, everyone would be offered a link to an online survey through the Council’s consultation hub. The letter to the parents containing information about the background to the scheme, and a link to the community engagement hub, is contained in Appendix 1. The letter to the residents, within and adjacent to the current exclusion zone, is shown in Appendix 2. Page 13 of 86
Page 14
4.10 Prior to the community engagement, a workshop was undertaken with senior pupils at Viewlands Primary School. Following a road safety presentation, there was an interactive discussion about active travel. The pupils understood the advantages of reduced traffic around schools and stated they would be happier to walk all or part of their journey if there were fewer vehicles on the school streets. The majority believed an exclusion zone around Viewlands Primary School was a good idea. 4.11 The project has been discussed with Police Scotland at the Perth & Kinross Road Safety Partnership and the Tayside Road Safety Forum. The Police are fully supportive of any measures to make our roads safer. While they cannot enforce every exclusion zone site all the time, they will respond to community concerns about road safety as resources permit. Police Scotland has agreed to a co-ordinated publicity and enforcement campaign, in partnership with the Council’s Parking Operations team and Communications team, and co- ordinated by the Road Safety Team, at the start of each term. This would include the Tulloch school exclusion zone which is scheduled to come into operation around Tulloch Primary School later this school year. 4.12 The previous and current Ward Councillors have been supportive of the exclusion zone trial to reduce congestion at the school and to promote active travel. They have been engaged throughout the whole project. The current Ward Councillors support the plan detailed in this report to reduce the number of streets covered by the zone to an area closer to the school gate. They have pushed for a co-ordinated education and enforcement plan to ensure better compliance. 4.13 47 people responded, including parents, residents within the new zone and residents adjacent to the new zone. Those residents who provided us with comments in June did not have to reply again, unless they wanted to, as their original comments had been kept on file and were included as part of this engagement. Some residents responded to both engagements but their views have been recorded once. Page 14 of 86
Page 15
4.14 The results are summarised as follows but the full report is contained in Appendices 3 and 4. Support the idea of a school exclusion zone • Yes: 26 people = 55.32% No: 19 people = 40.43% Support a school exclusion zone at Viewlands • Yes: 24 people = 51.06% No: 21 people = 44.68% Live within current school exclusion zone • Yes: 19 people = 40.43% No: 28 people = 59.57% Live within proposed school exclusion zone • Yes: 6 people = 12.77% No: 41 people = 87.23% Live in school catchment area • Yes: 37 people = 78.72% No: 8 people = 17.02% Would exclusion zone encourage you to walk • Yes: 15 people = 31.91% No: 22 people = 46.81% 4.15 During previous consultations, there was a clearer split between residents and parents. Generally, residents within the zone supported the access restriction, and most parents outside the zone opposed the restriction. The proposed changes to the streets covered by the restriction have affected the responses. Residents within the reduced zone support it. Most residents now outside the zone oppose it. The response from parents has been more divided. More parents expressed support for the reduced zone this time but there is still a significant number that oppose any restriction to vehicle movement. 4.16 Additional comments were received from each of the residents who had written or emailed the Council, and 45 of the 47 people who responded through the consultation hub. Further analysis of the comments indicates the following. As most people remarked on more than one aspect of the scheme, the number of comments exceeds the number of participants. 4.17 24 people support the reduced zone, including one resident of a street in the current zone that will not be in the new one. Two people want the zone restricted further to just cover Oakbank Crescent. This presents a problem on site as there is no turning facility on Oakbank Place or Fraser Terrace. 4.18 Twelve people want to keep the existing zone. One of the responses was a petition from all the residents of Murray Terrace wanting it retained but making no reference to any of the other streets that were proposed for removal. Despite a slight majority of those who responded being in favour of an exclusion zone, many questioned the effectiveness of the scheme if the restriction is not complied with or enforced. Page 15 of 86
Page 16
4.19 21 complained about the lack of enforcement and two people want the exclusion zone removed if it was not going to be enforced. One person complained about the lack of enforcement of the 20mph speed limit, and two people requested enforcement against car engines idling. Four people complained about parents parking on the School Keep Clear markings and two people reported regular parking across dropped kerbs, obstructing both pedestrian and vehicular movement. 4.20 23 people oppose the school exclusion zone or consider it un-necessary, four adding that the whole project is a complete waste of time and resources. One person stated the project was ineffective as there was still traffic on the streets because the Council permitted staff and residents within the zone. 4.21 Eight of these people objected because the restriction pushes traffic into adjacent streets and two complained that no Park & Stride sites, remote from the public road, had been provided. Two people suggested building a car park on the un-used Perth Academy playing area and one person requested a footpath from Viewlands Road directly to the primary school. 4.22 Three people supported the road safety and traffic calming measures detailed in the letter/email. Five people requested additional speed reduction measures such as speed cushions. One person asked for all streets to be covered by double yellow lines. This would permit drop-off/pick-up but prevent parking. One person stated there was no need for additional traffic calming. 4.23 Two people want the footway along the east of Fairies Road moved into the school grounds and the carriageway reinstated. This footway scheme was planned before the exclusion zone project and will remain in place. Four people wanted more school crossing patrollers, including a reinstatement of the patroller at the Oakbank Road end of Fairies Road. This post has been vacant for a number of years and the Council has been unable to recruit a patroller. Two residents of Fairies Road were opposed to the introduction of a Puffin crossing facility on Fairies Road. One person wanted the recently installed Puffin crossing on Viewlands Road relocated nearer to the school gate. This was assessed at the time as the preferred crossing site but the location of the mature trees along the road edge prohibited it. 4.24 One person requested a residents’ parking scheme to deter parents from parking in their street. Perth & Kinross Council does not currently operate a residents’ parking scheme. A parking permit scheme operates in Perth city centre and part of Crieff which allows parking but does not guarantee a space. Two people stated the exclusion zone prevented family and friends from visiting them, even though the restriction only operates for two short periods of time each weekday during school term. Page 16 of 86
Page 17
4.25 Three people felt the flashing beacon signs were too big. These are non- standard sign and are not contained within the Signs Regulations, so they required non-prescribed signs (NPS) approval from Transport Scotland and are based on the signs trialled in Edinburgh. As the school exclusion zone moves forward, permission will be sought for a smaller sign of the same design. 5. Proposals 5.1 Although there is a slight majority of those who responded in favour of the school exclusion zone project, there remains a lot of opposition. As the wider exclusion zone is impractical, and removing the access restriction would reintroduce congestion at the school gates, it is recommended that the smaller exclusion zone is implemented. 5.2 A new Traffic Regulation Order will be created and the electronic signs repositioned. The new zone will cover Oakbank Crescent, the upper section of Oakbank Place and the upper section of Murray Place. This will ensure both vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the primary school are located within the exclusion zone. 5.3 Traffic surveys will be undertaken by the Road Safety Team before and after the changes are implemented to record traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. Ongoing monitoring to assess changes in travel patterns will be programmed as part of the publicity campaign each term. 5.4 Fraser Terrace needs to be retained within the school exclusion zone as there is no turning facility at the top of the street which would force drivers to exit through the school exclusion zone. 5.5 It is not proposed to retain Murray Terrace and Viewlands Place within the zone. They will be used as drop-off/pick-up areas. Due to the poor compliance at present, current traffic levels on these streets are similar to pre- exclusion zone levels. If the exclusion zone was removed completely, school traffic would return to these streets anyway. 5.6 Discussion is ongoing between the Road Safety Team in Traffic & Network, Education & Learning Service and the Public Transport Unit to promote a self- regulating one-way system through the campus. This project will help lower vehicle speeds and reduce the risk of conflict between the various road users. A series of remedial measures have been identified, including painted walkways, information signs, protective bollards, re-allocated parking and disabled parking bays. The Road Safety Team is preparing consultation drawings of the proposals which, if agreed, will be installed later this calendar year. Page 17 of 86
Page 18
5.7 The various speed projects detailed in the May E&I report and in the engagement letters/emails will be progressed in future years by the Road Safety Team through the Road Safety and the Active Travel budgets. These include the following: • A Puffin crossing on Fairies Road • Reconfiguration of the Murray Terrace/Viewlands Road junction • Priority system on Viewlands Road uphill of Murray Terrace • Footpath across eastern section of Perth Academy frontage • Footway along the south side of Viewlands Road to connect to the Glasgow Road 6. Conclusion 6.1 It is hoped reduction of the school exclusion zone to streets closer to the schools will help encourage better compliance with the access restriction and reduce the need for regular enforcement. 6.2 Promotion of, and compliance with, the reduced school exclusion zone closer to the school will help make the streets around the schools safer by reducing the risk of conflict between the various road users. 6.3 Promotion of, and compliance with, the reduced school exclusion zone closer to the school will help reduce dependence on vehicular transport and encourage active modes of transport. 7. Impact and Value Assessment 7.1 https://www.pkc.gov.uk/media/54568/Viewlands-School-Exclusion- Zone/pdf/School_Exclusion_Zone_Programme.pdf?m=1762779347143 8. Appendices 8.1 Appendix 1 - Community engagement letter to parents 8.2 Appendix 2 - Community engagement letter to residents 8.3 Appendix 3 - Community engagement report (Xcel) 8.4 Appendix 4 - Community engagement report (pdf) Page 18 of 86
Page 19
Economy, Place & Learning Director Alison Williams Environment & Infrastructure Strategic Lead Fraser Crofts Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, PERTH, PH1 5GD Tel 01738 475000 Contact Traffic & Network Team Tel: 01738 476476 Email: schoolexclusionzones@pkc.gov.uk www.pkc.gov.uk Our ref V-SEZ-25 Your ref Date 15 September 2025 Dear Viewlands Primary School Parent Viewlands School Exclusion Zone – Public Engagement Perth & Kinross Council is seeking to amend the school exclusion zone (SEZ) to cover a reduced number of streets closer to Viewlands Primary School. Parents and residents are being invited to comment on the amended zone. This is only a recommendation at present so people can also comment on the possible retention or complete removal of the existing access restriction. Additional information and a drawing showing the proposal accompany this letter. Although the recommended changes are based on the public consultation exercise last year, they do represent a major alteration to the school exclusion zone and a reduction in the number of streets covered by the access restriction. As a result, the Council is carrying out a new public engagement exercise prior to commencing any work on the Traffic Regulation Order. This will include electronic communication through the schools to the parents and a maildrop to residents in those streets within and adjacent to the original zone. The results of the consultation will be reported to the Economy & Infrastructure Committee. Customers are invited to respond through the online Community Hub [link]. You may also respond to the Road Safety Team by email to schoolexclusionzone@pkc.gov.uk, by telephone on 01738 476476 or in writing to their office in Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth, PH1 5GD. Please indicate whether you support the introduction of a new, smaller exclusion zone around the school, or if you wish to see some other change. It is important that everyone takes this opportunity to engage. The closing date for this engagement is Friday 10th October 2025. Delayed Office Opening for Employee Training This office will be closed from 8.45 am - 11.00 am on the first Thursday of each month. Appendix 1 5 Page 19 of 86
Page 20
Yours faithfully Daryl McKeown – Senior Engineer Traffic & Network, Perth & Kinross Council Page 20 of 86
Page 21
Page 21 of 86
Page 22
VIEWLANDW SCHOOL EXCLUSION ZONE Proposed consultation: Perth & Kinross Council is seeking to consult on the future of the school exclusion zone around Viewlands Primary School. A report was submitted to the Council’s Economy & Infrastructure Committee in May this year providing an update on the eectiveness of school exclusion zone programme in general and recommending changes at the Viewlands zone in Perth to encourage better compliance with the access restriction. This can be accessed on the Council’s website (E&I 25/131) or an electronic or paper copy can be provided. While most of our exclusion zones have been successful, the Viewlands SEZ has been problematic from the outset. Many parents voiced support for the Viewlands trial, and compliance by drivers was generally good in the initial months, but compliance rates have steadily decreased. Current traic figures are similar to pre-exclusion zone levels. There are two factors to consider at Viewlands school exclusion zone. Firstly, the zone has multiple accesses which enables drivers to easily travel into and through it. Secondly, there has been a lack of consistent enforcement. The current SEZ with multiple streets and accesses is untenable. Removing the access restriction completely would reintroduce the traic congestion around the school gates that prompted the introduction of the zone in the first instance. It is proposed that the zone is reduced in size to cover the streets in the immediate vicinity of the school, as indicated on the attached drawing. Residents and parents are being invited to comment on the amended zone; and can also comment on the possible retention or removal of the access restriction. Background: In 2022, in response to road safety concerns from the schools, parents and residents about traic levels at the school gates, a school exclusion zone was trialled on streets around Viewlands Primary School, Fairview School and Perth Academy. There were two objectives to installing the school exclusion zone: to reduce congestion and the associated road safety risk at the school gate to discourage dependence on vehicular transport by enabling people to walk to and from school The school exclusion zone is an access restriction, rather than a parking restriction. Vehicles are not permitted to drive in, out or around the school streets when the scheme is in operation. Signs are located at the entrance to the schemes which have flashing amber beacons to indicate when the scheme is in operation. Only those vehicles displaying a valid permit are exempt from the access restriction. Vehicles parked within the zone without a permit are entitled to remain but cannot move until the operating time finishes. Page 22 of 86
Page 23
As a school exclusion zone is an access restriction, entering the restricted area without a valid permit is a traic violation and a matter for Police Scotland. Similar to speed limits, local roads authorities can introduce such restrictions but enforcement remains the responsibility of the Police. The Temporary Traic Regulation Order introduced for the exclusion zone has now expired which means the access restriction cannot be enforced. Police Scotland retain a visible presence around the schools as an ongoing deterrent. Outome of trial: It is recommended that the school exclusion zone should be reduced to cover Oakbank Crescent, the upper section of Oakbank Place and the upper section of Murray Place (as per attached map). This will ensure both vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the primary school are located within the school exclusion zone. Fairies Road would continue to be a drop-o/pick-up point at the west of the campus. Murray Terrace and Viewlands Place would become drop-o/pick-up points at the east of the campus. These two streets were included in the extended trial site, but this moved the area covered by zone beyond the immediate vicinity of the schools. If the entire school exclusion zone is removed completely, school traic would return to these streets anyway. It is recommended to remove the school exclusion zone from Viewlands Terrace as it is remote from the school and has experienced little impact from displaced traic. Fraser Terrace needs to be retained within the school exclusion zone as there is no turning facility at the top of the street which would force drivers to exit through the school exclusion zone. Although these recommended changes are based on the public consultation exercise last year, they do represent a major alteration to the school exclusion zone and a reduction in the number of streets covered by the access restriction. As a result, the Traic & Network Team is carrying out a public consultation exercise prior to commencing any work on the Traic Regulation Order. This will include electronic communication through the schools to the parents and a maildrop to residents in those streets within and adjacent to the original zone. Page 23 of 86
Page 24
Further measures: A number of road safety and active travel projects are proposed around the schools in future years. These are not directly linked to the school exclusion zone but will help to upgrade pedestrian facilities in the area. A Puin crossing is being considered on Fairies Road, in the vicinity of the Oakbank Crescent junction, to replace the School Crossing Patroller that no longer operates at the site. The Murray Place/Viewlands Road junction is to be reconfigured. Reducing the junction radius will lower entrance speeds and enable the footways to be widened at the crossing points with Athollbank Drive. There is no land available within the road boundary to widen the narrow footway west (uphill) of Murray Terrace and provide a connection to Perth Academy. A priority system over this section is being considered. This would reduce the carriageway to single lane and provide the space for a widened footway and act as a speed reduction measure (especially if priority is given to uphill traic). A new remote footpath could then be constructed through the trees to the Academy’s main entrance, similar to the Viewlands Road path on the uphill side of the school gate. A footway could be constructed along the south side of Viewlands Road to connect to the Glasgow Road junction. In the interim, there is a footway on the north side of Viewlands Road although pupils are required to cross the road to access the schools. Page 24 of 86
Page 25
Economy, Place & Learning Director Alison Williams Environment & Infrastructure Strategic Lead Fraser Crofts Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, PERTH, PH1 5GD Tel 01738 475000 Contact Traffic & Network Team Tel: 01738 476476 Email: schoolexclusionzones@pkc.gov.uk www.pkc.gov.uk Our ref V-SEZ-25 Your ref Date 15 September 2025 Dear Resident Viewlands School Exclusion Zone – Public Engagement In June, Perth & Kinross Council consulted on the possible amendment to the school exclusion zone (SEZ) which would see the SEZ cover a reduced number of streets closer to the schools. We received a number of replies, both for and against the plan, but the overall number of responses was low - especially as previous community engagements had resulted in a high level of feedback. As a result, the Council is seeking the undertake further consultation with residents and parents to ensure everyone who wishes does engage. Although the recommended changes are based on the public consultation exercise last year, they do represent a major alteration to the school exclusion zone and a reduction in the number of streets covered by the access restriction. The Council is carrying out a new public engagement exercise prior to commencing any work on the Traffic Regulation Order – the legal document that makes the restriction enforceable. The Council’s Road Safety Team has been in discussion with Police Scotland about an enforcement strategy should the new zone go ahead. The engagement will include a maildrop to residents in those streets within and adjacent to the original zone and an electronic communication through the schools to the parents. The results of the consultation will be reported back to the Economy & Infrastructure Committee in November. We are asking you to indicate whether you support the introduction of a new, smaller exclusion zone around the school, or if you wish to see some other change. If you provided us with comments in June, you do not have to reply again – unless you want to. Your original comments have been kept on file and will be included as part of this engagement. Delayed Office Opening for Employee Training This office will be closed from 8.45 am - 11.00 am on the first Thursday of each month. Appendix 2 5 Page 25 of 86
Page 26
Here’s the URL to the Council’s online Community Hub: https://consult.pkc.gov.uk/communities/viewlands-exclusion-zone or you can use the Viewlands school exclusion zone QR code Additional information and a drawing showing the proposal accompany this letter. If you want a hard copy of the questions on the Community Hub, or want more information, you can contact the Road Safety Team by email to schoolexclusionzone@pkc.gov.uk, by telephone on 01738 476476 or in writing to their office in Pullar House (full address shown above). You may provide any supporting information or statement that you wish. The consultation is open until Friday 3rd October. It important that everyone takes this opportunity to engage with us and to have their say. Yours faithfully Daryl McKeown – Senior Engineer Traffic & Network, Perth & Kinross Council Page 26 of 86
Page 27
Page 27 of 86
Page 28
VIEWLANDS SCHOOL EXCLUSION ZONE Proposed consultation: Perth & Kinross Council is seeking to consult on the future of the school exclusion zone around Viewlands Primary School. A report was submitted to the Council’s Economy & Infrastructure Committee in May this year providing an update on the eectiveness of school exclusion zone programme in general and recommending changes at the Viewlands zone in Perth to encourage better compliance with the access restriction. This can be accessed on the Council’s website (E&I 25/131) or an electronic or paper copy can be provided. While most of our exclusion zones have been successful, the Viewlands SEZ has been problematic from the outset. Many parents voiced support for the Viewlands trial, and compliance by drivers was generally good in the initial months, but compliance rates have steadily decreased. Current traic figures are similar to pre-exclusion zone levels. There are two factors to consider at Viewlands school exclusion zone. Firstly, the zone has multiple accesses which enables drivers to easily travel into and through it. Secondly, there has been a lack of consistent enforcement. The current SEZ with multiple streets and accesses is untenable. Removing the access restriction completely would reintroduce the traic congestion around the school gates that prompted the introduction of the zone in the first instance. It is proposed that the zone is reduced in size to cover the streets in the immediate vicinity of the school, as indicated on the attached drawing. Residents and parents are being invited to comment on the amended zone; and can also comment on the possible retention or removal of the access restriction. Details are on the final page of this letter. Background: In 2022, in response to road safety concerns from the schools, parents and residents about traic levels at the school gates, a school exclusion zone was trialled on streets around Viewlands Primary School, Fairview School and Perth Academy. There were two objectives to installing the school exclusion zone: to reduce congestion and the associated road safety risk at the school gate to discourage dependence on vehicular transport by enabling people to walk to and from school The school exclusion zone is an access restriction, rather than a parking restriction. Vehicles are not permitted to drive in, out or around the school streets when the scheme is in operation. Signs are located at the entrance to the schemes which have flashing amber beacons to indicate when the scheme is in operation. Only those vehicles displaying a valid permit are exempt from the access restriction. Vehicles parked within the zone without a permit are entitled to remain but cannot move until the operating time finishes. Page 28 of 86
Page 29
As a school exclusion zone is an access restriction, entering the restricted area without a valid permit is a traic violation and a matter for Police Scotland. Similar to speed limits, local roads authorities can introduce such restrictions but enforcement remains the responsibility of the Police. The Temporary Traic Regulation Order introduced for the exclusion zone has now expired which means the access restriction cannot be enforced. Police Scotland retain a visible presence around the schools as an ongoing deterrent. Outcome of trial: It is recommended that the school exclusion zone should be reduced to cover Oakbank Crescent, the upper section of Oakbank Place and the upper section of Murray Place (as per attached map). This will ensure both vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the primary school are located within the school exclusion zone. Fairies Road would continue to be a drop-o/pick-up point at the west of the campus. Murray Terrace and Viewlands Place would become drop-o/pick-up points at the east of the campus. These two streets were included in the extended trial site, but this moved the area covered by zone beyond the immediate vicinity of the schools. If the entire school exclusion zone is removed completely, school traic would return to these streets anyway. It is recommended to remove the school exclusion zone from Viewlands Terrace and Braeside Gardens are they are remote from the school and have experienced little impact from displaced traic. Fraser Terrace needs to be retained within the school exclusion zone as there is no turning facility at the top of the street which would force drivers to exit through the school exclusion zone. Although these recommended changes are based on the public consultation exercise last year, they do represent a major alteration to the school exclusion zone and a reduction in the number of streets covered by the access restriction. As a result, the Traic & Network Team is carrying out a public engagement exercise prior to commencing any work on the Traic Regulation Order. This will include electronic communication through the schools to the parents and a maildrop to residents in those streets within and adjacent to the original zone. Page 29 of 86
Page 30
Further measures: A number of road safety and active travel projects are proposed around the schools in future years. These are not directly linked to the school exclusion zone but will help to upgrade pedestrian facilities in the area. A Puin crossing is being considered on Fairies Road, in the vicinity of the Oakbank Crescent junction, to replace the School Crossing Patroller that no longer operates at the site. The Murray Terrace/Viewlands Road junction is to be reconfigured. Reducing the junction radius will lower entrance speeds and enable the footways to be widened at the crossing points with Athollbank Drive. There is no land available within the road boundary to widen the narrow footway west (uphill) of Murray Terrace and provide a connection to Perth Academy. A priority system over this section is being considered. This would reduce the carriageway to single lane and provide the space for a widened footway and act as a speed reduction measure (especially if priority is given to uphill traic). A new remote footpath could then be constructed through the trees to the Academy’s main entrance, similar to the Viewlands Road path on the uphill side of the school gate. A footway could be constructed along the south side of Viewlands Road to connect to the Glasgow Road junction. In the interim, there is a footway on the north side of Viewlands Road although pupils are required to cross the road to access the schools. Page 30 of 86
Page 31
Do you support the idea of a school exclusion zone? - Do you support the idea of a school exclusion zone? Do you think an exclusion zone is necessary at Viewlands? - •Do you think an exclusion zone is necessary at Viewlands Do you live within the zone as it currently exists? - Do you live within the existing zone Do you live within the proposed reduced zone (see map)? - Do you live within the proposed reduced zone - Yes Do you live within the proposed reduced zone (see map)? - Do you live within the proposed reduced zone - No Do you live within the proposed reduced zone (see map)? - Do you live within the proposed reduced zone - Don't know Do you live within the school catchment area? - Do you live within the school catchment area Would an exclusion zone encourage you undertake all or part of the journey to/from the school on foot? - Would an exclusion zone encourage you undertake all or part of the journey to/from the school on foot? Do you have any other comments about the retention, reduction or removal of the school exclusion zone? If so please leave them below. - Text box - comments Submitted Date No Yes No No No No My son attends Fairview school usually by taxi as we live in the carse. Having recently had to drive him to school we believe the exclusion zone of any kind is a complete waste of time as it is not being adhered to anyway !! There is absolutely no point in putting these measures in place unless they are enforced - currently not happening as absolute chaos in the current zone every single morning. Reducing it won’t make any difference! 2025-09-16 10:55:28 No No No No Yes No These restriction zones make no sense at all. The traffic jam just moves to other streets, and children are not safely left on the pavements by their parents. My son was almost hit because of these ideas. I am a working parent and I want to drop my child off as close to the school as possible so that both of us feel safe. We arrive 30 minutes before school so that I can also get to work on time – it was definitely better and safer for the children before these zones were introduced. You should have built a pavement on the Perth Academy side so that children could walk that way to Viewlands. What was the point of narrowing the road and building a pavement on the other side, where it is impossible to drive comfortably? On top of that, nobody respects these restriction zones because they are pointless. This is not only my opinion but also the opinion of every parent I know who has children at Viewlands. 2025-09-16 15:33:50 No No Yes Yes Yes No As a homeowner in the school exclusion zone it’s a nightmare if family or friends come to visit they have to be away by a certain time I know they can apply fir a permit but that would be excessive amounts of people getting permits. Also the amount of cars that still come down this street with no permit is a joke, yet my friends and family get nervous about it! 2025-09-16 15:46:00 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes I drop off and pick up my child on foot on Fairies Rd every day. I watch car after car enter the zone at drop off and pick up time. Cars also park up and down the zoned streets including the yellow zigzags outside the school entrances. There is no penalty for entering the zones. Having traffic police visit every few months is hardly worth worrying about for the repeat offenders. What the point? 2025-09-16 16:42:01 Yes No No No No No 2025-09-16 17:21:31 Appendix 3 5 Page 31 of 86
Page 32
No No No No Yes No If the zone must remain then supportive of reducing it. I have a child at Perth Academy and therefore only drop off at school rarely. The current zone seems excessive and there is still a lot of congestion. 2025-09-17 07:00:57 No No No No Yes Yes An exclusion zone needs to be enforceable otherwise it is pointless. Furthermore the police are under resourced hence it would be best if their time is spent on more important matters. 2025-09-17 09:51:44 No No No No Yes No School exclusion zone causes more dangerous driving than if it was not there. It’s never going to work fully it can’t be policed or checked on a daily basis so parents will continue to park on it. The residents living within the zone chose to move to an area with multiple schools, parents parking during and after school is to be expected and will never stop. The zone is a waste of time and money. What we need is more school patrol especially on fairies road which iv seen more near misses on with children trying to cross that road. 2025-09-17 09:52:22 Yes No No No No No In my opinion the exclusion zone is quite wide right now and needs to be made a little smaller 2025-09-17 10:05:27 No No No No Yes No The current exclusion zone is not fit for purpose. Our family lives within the catchment area, and with three young children, walking to school is often impractical — especially in poor weather (it is also 40 mins uphill as we live near the hospital but still in the catchment). As it stands, the exclusion zone leaves parents with two poor options: park in areas that are unsafe and closer to Glasgow Road, or add to congestion in surrounding streets as everyone searches for space. While I fully understand the need for an exclusion zone directly on the school road to ensure pupil safety, extending it to the surrounding roads only shifts the problem elsewhere and increases risk for both children and drivers. A more balanced approach would keep children safe while still allowing parents a safe and practical way to drop off their children. One practical step would be to remove the restriction entirely on Fraser Terrace, which would provide safe, accessible parking without forcing cars into more dangerous areas. 2025-09-17 10:33:19 No No No No No No I feel the school exclusion zone is not effective. The nearby roads that are left available to park on a narrower and used by school buses therefore when I park on that street along with others it causes congestion and frustration for others. Also causing the task for people crossing the road there hazardous. However the main street that the school is on is wide, there is a crossing island allowing people to cross with ease and also a crossing patrol. I understand that more than 50% of pupils that attend Viewlands are outwith catchment therefore have no choice but to drive to the school. 2025-09-17 11:00:34 Page 32 of 86
Page 33
No No No No Yes No I do not support a school exclusion zone at Viewlands. I care about pupil safety and cleaner air, but this proposal does not deliver those outcomes and it creates avoidable pressure for working families. Emissions. The zone does not change the fact that families who need to drive will still drive. It shifts where engines idle, it does not remove those trips. The children most likely to benefit already live close enough to walk and already do so. Families who cannot walk because of distance, health or job start times are simply pushed further away. Safety and congestion on the ground. I have parked prior to the trial and after it began. I have never struggled to find a space, which suggests not every pupil arrives by car. I use the crossing with a school crossing patroller and feel my child is safe. I do not see a material safety issue beyond what is typical at a school start and finish. Enforcement and value for money. The Council notes that the TTRO has expired and that enforcement has been inconsistent, with compliance now similar to pre-zone levels. Designing a scheme that depends on scarce police time is not a good use of resources. The ongoing spend on signs, flashing beacons and repeat consultations would be better used on frontline crossing provision. If the zone is removed, I would support funding additional school crossing patrollers, including reinstating one on Fairies Road and adding one at the upper Oakbank Crescent entrance, alongside maintaining the existing patroller nearby. Residents. People who bought homes beside a school did so knowing there would be short, busy peaks. Residents deserve respect, but resident inconvenience at bell time should not drive a policy that 2025-09-17 11:04:16 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes I am concerned that Murray Terrace has not been included in the revised exclusion zone. It is a bus route, heavily used by pupils walking to and from school, and during peak times cars park on both sides of the road, creating congestion and safety risks. Including Murray Terrace in the zone would help reduce these problems and improve safety for children and families. 2025-09-17 11:06:35 No No No No No No 2025-09-17 11:25:15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes As a resident of Murray Terrace, I would like to express my concern about this street being excluded in the new zone and becoming a drop- off/pick-up point. There is already a problem of congestion on the street - since many people ignored the exclusion zone as it was not enforced. There is also a problem of cars speeding up and down the street, making it very unsafe for school children walking to school. In my opinion, speed-bumps are needed, or a pedestrian crossing, or other measures to control the speed and alleviate the congestion. Overall, I do not agree with it becoming a drop-off area and not being included in the restricted areas. 2025-09-17 12:04:12 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes I feel there’s a place for the exclusion zone immediately around the school, however I do feel it’s too wide and would welcome its reduction. However I also feel that lots of people ignore the zone and just go in it anyway, especially immediately around the school. 2025-09-17 12:42:06 Page 33 of 86
Page 34
No No No No Yes No I would like to see the exclusion zone removed and replaced with traffic calming measures such as speed bumps and Zebra crossings. The exclusion zone is not enforced at all so is roundly ignored. (Police Scotland attended one morning last year which reminded people for a day or two before it went back to the way it was) Even if it was not ignored it is still heavily trafficked by taxis and teachers and those with permits. When approaching the school on foot it is difficult to cross the roads that are part of the exclusion zone due to the volume of traffic in the mornings. In its current form it is extremely far from a "pedestrian and cycle zone" as advertised on the entry signs. The signage gives the impression that it would be safe for a child to cycle or walk on the road. In reality they would be squashed by several hundred vehicles on any given morning. The exclusion zone also pushes parents out on to heavy traffic roads and bus routes which become very difficult for buses and cars to pass along (see Fairies Road and Oak Bank road each morning and night) The exclusion zones were originally intended to push parents to park in safe zones like car parks and walk the final distance to the school "During the trial, we will work with the schools and communities to identify and promote locations away from schools where parents can park; this will disperse the cars over a wider area than at present. The use of these "Park and Stride" sites will be encouraged as well as pedestrian and cycle training and where necessary the provision of 2025-09-17 13:34:48 Don't know Don't know Yes No Yes Don't know I see little to no value in reducing the size of the SEZ. Either scrap it completely, or keep it as it is (and consider policing it properly). Reducing its size will simply encourage more people to park on the (smaller) edges of the zone, thus increasing/concentrating the level of congestion in the surrounding area, and encouraging more people to drive rather than walk. As it currently stands, I know that many drivers actively flaunt the rules anyway, with messages being sent out via social media on the occasional days where it is being policed, which completely defies the purpose of the scheme. If the current zone deters a percentage of the traffic that would otherwise pose a risk to children, why reduce its size? And if it makes no discernible difference whatsoever, then why bother keeping it at all, let alone consider weakening its impact? 2025-09-17 16:57:56 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Currently there is no adherence to the SEZ at the beginning or end of the school day so there is really no point in having it unless it is enforced. The area is still dangerous for pedestrians at these times. 2025-09-17 20:14:42 Page 34 of 86
Page 35
Yes Yes No No Yes Yes The question should be : Do you want children have basic human rights to good health by being able to travel actively and sustainably, breathe clean air and not get run over? The answer is YES , and SEZs are a key part of measures required to achieve that. I would prefer that the exclusion zone stays as is, but would accept a reduction. Importantly, there needs to be enforcement of SEZ, which can only be achieved through legislation which grants powers to traffic wardens as police are under resourced. 2025-09-17 20:52:44 Yes No No No No No I think there are far more important measures needed to be put in place to make the journey to school safer for children. In the new proposal where do children safely cross the road to get onto Fraser terrace? There will be lots of parked cars , so blind spots for crossing, lots Of cars moving and now where dedicated to cross. The junctions are also going to have cars parked to close to junctions making it harder to safely cross. I would propose double yellow lines on and near the junctions and a crossing installed so children and families can safely cross to walk up Fraser terrace. Instead of banning traffic which needs to be near the school and forcing young children to walk further next to busy roads with no safe crossings, to have a more structured and flow system with safe crossing points makes a lot more sense for children’s safety. We are outwith catchment but walk to school. Stopping unsafe parking and having more dedicated safe crossing areas makes much more sense. 2025-09-17 22:01:37 Yes Yes No No Yes No Because of the number of schools and nurseries in this area I think it would be a negative to reduce the exclusion zone because there is already so much traffic in that area with the exclusion in place it for those who can be in the zone, it would be even worse again if the area was reduced. 2025-09-18 09:44:18 Yes Yes No No No No Crossing patrollers are invaluable and not only add to safety but also provide a friendly and consistent face for children on way to school. I am grateful for the ones outside viewlands and the academy. Could we have more please? 2025-09-18 12:31:22 Page 35 of 86
Page 36
No No No No Yes No As stated in your correspondence, traffic levels are similar to pre- exclusion zone levels. The Viewlands SEZ is not working so just remove it. Changing the area covered will make absolutely no difference to compliance levels. A considerable amount of time, money and resources have been wasted, just pull the plug and accept it is not working. Parents apparently voiced support for the scheme however are the ones not complying. Viewlands Primary School has a large number of pupils enrolled from outwith the catchment area and vehicular transport is necessary. I believe the Viewlands SEZ has made vehicular and pedestrian travel more dangerous in the surrounding areas. Oakbank Road and Fairies Road in particular, the SEZ has seen an increase of traffic and parked vehicles on these roads. Fairies Road was previously narrowed in width, there is no crossing system or crossing patroller, and is labelled as drop off/pick up point which makes it near impossible and dangerous to traverse. Relying on Police Scotland to enforce the scheme is flawed. Public services are severely underfunded and scarily stretched and I disagree that it is in the public interest to dedicate Police resources to enforcing this scheme. As a local resident I have voiced my opinion on all surveys created so far however am getting rather tired with the continued delays and push backs in relation to consultation. Perhaps from the low level responses others are feeling the same way. 2025-09-19 13:04:01 Yes Yes No No Don't know Yes I agree with the proposed reduction of the school exclusion zone. Generally, I would like to see more enforcement of traffic regulations - not just of the exclusion zone, but also of speed limits on streets near the schools - particularly Viewlands Road and Oakbank Road. 2025-09-19 14:24:28 Don't know Don't know Yes No Yes Don't know Our children attend Strathallan School and so our only contact with the primary and secondary has been this zone. I never understood from the start why we were involved (we live at 39 Viewlands Terrace) as it does not affect us directly nor the children. What does irk me is the need for large ugly signage that flashing at the bottom of our street. There is enough of this "furniture" and it is not required. My hope is with the reduction, it means getting rid of these horrible things from the street. 2025-09-19 14:40:41 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No I strongly support the continuation of the current zone and do not support the proposal to reduce the area of the zone. This view is supported by the submitted petition signed by all the households in Viewlands Place. The key to making the current zone operate successfully is to police the area and enforce the regulations rather than changing the zone. 2025-09-19 15:34:49 Page 36 of 86
Page 37
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Don't know This is a complete waste of time and money if it is not enforced by a regular, random enforcement strategy. I am a resident and I have witnessed enforcement on only 2 occasions. The road has once again turned into either a race track or a traffic jam as drivers pay no heed to the flashing lights. 2025-09-19 15:49:01 Yes Yes No No Yes Don't know I live just outside the exclusion zone but there hasn’t been any impact for me since it was introduced and if the data shows that it has made roads around school’s quieter since its implementation then that’s a good thing for children’s safety. 2025-09-19 16:28:47 No No Yes No Yes No Reducing the exclusion zone is a better option than the one currently in place but for 15 minutes disruption morning and afternoon during term time I don't see it as a major issue. People will just move to the nearest place they can park to drop/pick up their children. Why can't the unused part of the academy playing field, currently wild growing and a wasted space, be turned into a drop off and pickup area. I don't think it would be any more expensive than all the signage that was put up and will now have to be removed . 2025-09-19 16:41:17 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Don't know Not bothered. Although I live in the school catchment area, our daughter has left school and we have requirement to travel close to the school area. 2025-09-19 18:06:34 No No Yes Yes Yes Don't know A drop off/pickup point up point could be created within the Academy playing fields, especially the section at Fairies Road/Oakbank Crescent which does not appear to be used. We don’t want cars sitting in our streets with engines running, particularly in winter. Or a one way system down Oakbank Crescent. 2025-09-20 17:40:08 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes The zone is a good idea but must be better enforced. It is largely ignored by many, rendering it useless. The same goes for the local 20mph zone - the signs are not discouraging the bad driving. Both elements need cameras, fines or some other form of enforcement. 2025-09-20 19:43:59 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes I agree with the reduction in the zone. At the moment it is too large and unworkable. I would rather see it removed completely than keep it how it is. 2025-09-21 10:31:52 No No Yes No Yes Don't know With apparently increasingly wet winters, it is perhaps understandable that parents of small primary children may wish to deliver their children as near to the school as possible during the winter months. Preference for removal of school exclusion zone, reluctant acceptance of reduction of school exclusion zone 2025-09-22 11:11:36 Page 37 of 86
Page 38
No No No No No No My son has just started primary 1 and I was not aware of the school exclusion zone until we received an email about the proposed changes. Since receiving the email, I have tried not to drive in the current zone and not to park on Oakbank Crescent during the operating hours, but I feel all it does is push cars and traffic onto other residents streets. We have started parking on Oakbank road, but that road seems more busier for children crossing the road. We live in Charlotte Gate and Viewlands is our closest school even though it is not our catchment area (Craigie PS). We will try to walk into school some days but it is not always practical, especially when we need to get into work asap after the drop off. Ideally prefer full removal of the school exclusion zone. 2025-09-22 14:54:19 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Some feedback: 1 Compliance has been negligible - unless enforcement is introduced the whole scheme is a waste of time & money 2 Outcome of trial - para 2 - "It is recommended to remove the sez from Viewlands Terrace & Braeside Gardens are (sic should be as?) they are remote from the school and have experienced little impact from displaced traffic" - I would suggest that Viewlands Terrace is closer than Fairies Road & that the "little impact" is a result of the lack of enforcement (i.e. the impact on Viewlands Terrace remains unknown) 3 Believe the Murray Place/Murray Terrace junction should be reconsidered - with the scheme not being enforced/elapsed, this junction is often chaotic & dangerous with cars parking to closely to the junction 2025-09-22 16:02:33 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Reduced zone is an improvement. Signage for the existing zone is not ideal: lights are actually quite hard to see, also if you turn up Murray Place from Glasgow Road you cannot see the signs until it is too late. 2025-09-23 13:53:32 Page 38 of 86
Page 39
Yes Yes No No Don't know Don't know We feel the proposed changes to the school exclusion zone indicated in letter of 17/9/25 are sensible ones and would ease the pressure on the narrowed Fairies Road as well as the lower end of Oakbank Road. Fairies Rd also serves as an overspill pickup/ drop off area for Oakbank School as well as Viewlands, particularly in the afternoons when it can be difficult for those residing at the lower end of Fairies Road to enter or exit their driveways. Including Murray Terrace and Viewlands Place for parking would help to ease the pressure on Fairies& Oakbank Rds which currently take most of the traffic. We also feel that the proposed modifications to the junction of Murray Terrace and Viewlands Rd are neither appropriate nor necessary, and would cause issues for motorists at ALL times, not just at school in/ out times, which seems hardly fair. A better solution would be to move the current pelican crossing to the school gate ( opposite 41&43 Viewlands Rd) where most people cross anyway, and would also allow people walking up the road to safely access the pavement behind the trees. The area between 41&43 is also shielded by moderately high shrubs, which would minimise inconvenience. It would also have the desired effect of reducing traffic speed. Regards Lesley Milsom David Milsom 10 Fairies Road 2025-09-23 15:00:14 No No No No Yes No I would favour removal of the Zone As a second choice the reduction in size would be better than the current scheme 2025-09-23 16:09:04 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes I have no objection to the reduction of the current exclusion zone. There was occasional police presence over the previous school year with police employing a softly softly approach with individuals who failed to observe the rules being simply warned. Not only is there a continued high volume of cars parked along Oakbank Crescent at school drop- off/pick-up points but a number of vehicles have been parking over the yellow zig-zag lines immediately outside the school, Rather than simply warn people, PKC in conjunction with the local police force should enforce the amended exclusion zone and issue fines to those who fail to observe the rules. That way we might at last actually have the safety of children, their guardians and residents properly addressed for real rather than a huge expense having been incurred with the original installation of the parking zone infrastructure and application of the rules given lip-service. 2025-09-23 18:12:25 Page 39 of 86
Page 40
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes my main concern is the lack of enforcement. You say that the project was problematic from the outset, and I wonder if that was lack of any real understanding between PKC and the Police. What are you expecting to be the tangible benefits of reducing the SEZ? What restrictions are you imposing for waiting and idling times in the drop-off/pick-up zones? Are we, in Murray Terrace, going to retain the 20mph limit, and how are you going to ensure it is followed, especially by non-school traffic? 2025-09-29 12:28:33 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes As Murray Place residents we fully support the exclusion zone as a way of making it safer for children to get to/from school, but have been disappointed in the lack of compliance and enforcement. We currently pick up/drop off children at Viewlands School and have noticed that the crossing at the top of Fraser Terrace is both difficult and dangerous as a result of cars parked on and around the corner area, blocking off a 'dipped' pavement area which we understand to be a crossing point. Possible improvements could be (i) some form of traffic calming measures on Murray Place to ensure compliance with the 20mph speed limit and (ii) double yellow or zig zag markings around the corners at the top of Fraser Terrace. 2025-10-01 14:48:57 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Don't know We are happy with the proposed changes to the school exclusion zone for Viewlands Primary / Perth Academy. However for it to be successfull it needs to be managed. The traffic lights at the Glasgow Road / Murray Place have improved the road safety significantly at this junction and must be retained. 2025-10-01 19:34:26 Page 40 of 86
Page 41
No No No No Yes No Whilst I don't actually live within the school exclusion zone, I do live right on the periphery in Fairies Road overlooking the Academy Playing Field. I wholeheartedly support the total removal of the zone. Having said that I think the reduction does make more sense than the one originally put into place because I could never understand why Viewlands Terrace and Viewlands Place were included in the first place as they are so far from the schools. I note that there is the possibility of installing a Puffin crossing on Fairies Road in the vicinity of the Oakbank Crescent junction and I am vehemently opposed to this for obvious reasons. I don't understand why a School Crossing Patroller can't be reinstated there. There are Crossing Patrollers in Viewlands Road only feet away from a traffic light controlled crossing which I have never seen being used and one further up Oakbank Crescent close to the Fraser Terrace junction. Why not move the one that patrols Viewlands Road? A new pavement was installed in Fairies Road and was touted as a drop off and pick up point. To date, I have never seen any car stop on that side of the road. They have continued to stop on the houses side and children then have to cross over to the other side which is a ludicrous situation. In the almost 39 years I have lived here there have been absolutely no instances of a child being knocked over by a car. As a matter of fact parents prefer to stay on the houses side and regularly sit on MY wall to wait on their little darlings. 2025-10-02 12:19:13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Don't know It is to be commended that the council wanted to help make it safer for all the pupils who attend the three schools accessed from Oakbank Crescent. The footpath that was made on Viewlands Road is excellent. Sadly the same can not be said for Fairies Road. Narrowing the road was a very foolish move even more so that the council ask parents to use it as a pick up and drop off point. If parents do this and block the road as happened when the zone first started it makes it very dangerous for all using the road. Safety has to be for everyone. This is an essential route for access to Oakbank and other areas. It is also the bus route. It would heip safety if the bushes at the corner of Oakbank Crescent growing over the pavement are removed. People picking up pupils after school start parking on Oakbank Crescent from 2.15 onwards. They do not stay until the exclusion period is over before driving off. Further congestion is caused by school staff parking all day when there is enough parking provision within the school grounds. Easy to stop this. Make their permits access only. To make this exclusion zone work there needs to be enforcement. Frequent checks. 2025-10-03 15:03:58 No No Yes No Yes No I agree with the Proposed reduced zone as far as the reductions are concerned, however I would also advocate for the removal of any remaining restricted zone in it entirely. 2025-10-03 23:26:35 Page 41 of 86
Page 42
Page 42 of 86
Page 43
Page 1 Viewlands School Exclusion Zone : Summary report This report was created on Tuesday 07 October 2025 at 11:45 and includes 47 responses. The activity ran from 16/09/2025 to 03/10/2025. Contents Question 1: Do you support the idea of a school exclusion zone? 1 Do you support the idea of a school exclusion zone? 1 Question 2: Do you think an exclusion zone is necessary at Viewlands? 1 • Do you think an exclusion zone is necessary at Viewlands 1 Question 3: Do you live within the zone as it currently exists? 2 Do you live within the existing zone 2 Question 4: Do you live within the proposed reduced zone (see map)? 2 Do you live within the proposed reduced zone 2 Question 5: Do you live within the school catchment area? 2 Do you live within the school catchment area 2 Question 6: Would an exclusion zone encourage you undertake all or part of the journey to/from the school on foot? 3 Would an exclusion zone encourage you undertake all or part of the journey to/from the school on foot? 3 Question 7: Do you have any other comments about the retention, reduction or removal of the school exclusion zone? If so please leave them below. 3 Text box - comments 3 Question 1: Do you support the idea of a school exclusion zone? Do you support the idea of a school exclusion zone? Yes No Don't know Not Answered 0 26 Option Total Percent Yes 26 55.32% No 19 40.43% Don't know 2 4.26% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 2: Do you think an exclusion zone is necessary at Viewlands? • Do you think an exclusion zone is necessary at Viewlands Yes No Don't know Not Answered 0 24 Appendix 4 5 Page 43 of 86
Page 44
Page 2 Option Total Percent Yes 24 51.06% No 21 44.68% Don't know 2 4.26% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 3: Do you live within the zone as it currently exists? Do you live within the existing zone Yes No Don't know Not Answered 0 28 Option Total Percent Yes 19 40.43% No 28 59.57% Don't know 0 0.00% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 4: Do you live within the proposed reduced zone (see map)? Do you live within the proposed reduced zone Yes No Don't know Not Answered 0 41 Option Total Percent Yes 6 12.77% No 41 87.23% Don't know 0 0.00% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 5: Do you live within the school catchment area? Do you live within the school catchment area Yes No Don't know Not Answered 0 37 Page 44 of 86
Page 45
Page 3 Option Total Percent Yes 37 78.72% No 8 17.02% Don't know 2 4.26% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 6: Would an exclusion zone encourage you undertake all or part of the journey to/from the school on foot? Would an exclusion zone encourage you undertake all or part of the journey to/from the school on foot? Yes No Don't know Not Answered 0 22 Option Total Percent Yes 15 31.91% No 22 46.81% Don't know 10 21.28% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 7: Do you have any other comments about the retention, reduction or removal of the school exclusion zone? If so please leave them below. Text box - comments There were 45 responses to this part of the question. Page 45 of 86
Page 46
Page 46 of 86
Page 47
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality Committee or Board: Economy and Infrastructure Committee Date of Meeting: 19 November 2025 Report Title: Perth and Kinross Place Branding Report Number: 25/311 Report Author: Kirsty Easton, Business, Place and Investment Team Leader Organisational Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for the refreshed Perth and Kinross place branding and approval for the proposed governance, implementation and engagement arrangements to support the long-term embedding of the brand across the Council, our partners and Perth and Kinross area. The refreshed narrative will provide a strong foundation for place promotion, investment attraction, business engagement and community pride. 1.2 This report outlines the development of the Story, the opportunity to relaunch and strengthen this work, and the next steps required to ensure consistent adoption and use of the brand. 1.3 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Context 4. Proposals 5. Conclusion 6. Impact and Value Assessment 7. Appendices 6 Page 47 of 86
Page 48
2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee 2.1 endorse the refreshed Perth and Kinross place branding as set out in this report and accompanying presentation. 2.2 approve the recommendations set out in the proposals. 3. Background/Context 3.1 In 2018, the then Perth City Development Board, with support from Perth and Kinross Council, recognised that the area lacked a unified story. This resulted in commissioning Thinking Place, a specialist place-branding agency, to develop a place branding narrative and visual identity that would bring together Perth and Kinross area under one clear story. 3.2 This work led by the private sector was informed by an extensive engagement process which included over twenty individual interviews with key stakeholders, focus groups, workshops and an online survey so we could understand how people felt about Perth and Kinross. This resulted in a well- researched story which was supported by a draft story book and visual assets. 3.3 The Story was launched on 23 November 2018 and whilst the work was high quality and well received, the intention was always that the private sector would then lead, with Council support, creating a sense of shared ownership. However, at the time, there were a few challenges: • Covid • limited resources • competing priorities • no clear structure to drive the brand forward 3.4 As a result, the Story didn’t achieve the level of visibility or adoption it needed. 3.5 Since then, there has been increasing recognition that Perth and Kinross needs a clear, confident identity to attract investment, talent and visitors, while strengthening civic pride and community confidence. 4. Proposals 4.1 The Council’s Business, Place and Investment Team has reviewed the original brand work and developed a refreshed brand framework (see Appendix 1). Page 48 of 86
Page 49
4.2 The refreshed framework is built around three interlocking narratives which provides a strong strategic foundation and a consistent structure for how the Council and partners can communicate our story to different audiences via different channels as follows: • ‘Live Life Well’ - One shared Story of Place for Perth and Kinross - speaking to all via all communication channels. • ‘Innovative, Sustainable, Connected’ - speaking to businesses and investors via 'Invest in Perth' communication channel. • ‘Live Life Well’ - speaking to residents and visitors via 'Perth City and Towns' communication channel. 4.3 The refreshed brand offers a strong foundation for place promotion, investment attraction, business engagement and community pride. 4.4 To realise its full potential, the brand must be embedded consistently across Council services, partner organisations and communities. It is already embedded in the Council’s overall vision for ‘a Perth and Kinross where everybody live life well, free of poverty and inequality’. Clear brand governance, practical resources, and structured engagement with internal and external stakeholders are needed to take it further. 4.5 To implement this effectively and ensure consistency, it is recommended that the following proposals are approved to guide delivery, coordination and long- term adoption of the brand narrative. Governance and Implementation 4.6 The Business, Place and Investment Team are best placed to lead this work, given its strategic role in economic development, business engagement and place promotion. It is proposed that the Business, Place and Investment Team lead delivery of the refreshed brand narrative and implementation plan, acting as brand guardians and coordinating work across Council services and external partners. The team will work closely with the Communications Team to ensure a consistent and professional approach across all channels. 4.7 The reporting and oversight will be provided through this Committee, with updates to the Committee’s Convenors and Vice-Convenors and to all elected members as needed. In addition, external partnerships such as the Perth and Kinross Economic Partnership will allow external partners to participate. Toolkit and Guidelines 4.8 A refreshed Perth and Kinross brand and comprehensive brand toolkit will be developed, including key messages, visual guidance, tone of voice, and templates to support consistent use by Council’s teams, partners and stakeholders. Stakeholders’ engagement will be encouraged to ensure buy-in. Page 49 of 86
Page 50
Engagement and Adoption 4.9 A structured engagement plan will be created to ensure awareness, understanding and adoption of the brand. This will include internal briefings, partner workshops, and community and business engagement sessions in- person or digitally. These activities will ensure that the risk of low adoption is mitigated and buy-in maximised. Timeline 4.10 Embedding a place brand takes time. It is anticipated that full implementation will require at least two years, with key milestones including: • Governance and toolkit established – by Spring 2026 • Partner and political engagement complete – by Summer 2026 • Brand embedding and communications rollout – 2026–2027 5. Conclusion 5.1 The refreshed Perth and Kinross brand has the potential to provide a valuable opportunity to build a clear, consistent identity for Perth and Kinross that aligns communications, strengthens partnerships, and enhances the area’s visibility and reputation. 5.2 With the right governance, engagement and political support, the brand can become a unifying and lasting asset for Perth and Kinross, one that supports investment, community pride and long-term economic growth. 6. Impact and Value Assessment 6.1 This report has been classified as being an operational report and as such does not require a full Impact and Value Assessment. 7. Appendices 7.1 Appendix 1 - Perth and Kinross Brand Framework and Narrative Summary Page 50 of 86
Page 51
Appendix 1 6 Page 51 of 86
Page 52
Page 52 of 86
Page 53
Page 53 of 86
Page 54
Page 54 of 86
Page 55
Page 55 of 86
Page 56
Page 56 of 86
Page 57
Page 57 of 86
Page 58
Page 58 of 86
Page 59
Page 59 of 86
Page 60
Page 60 of 86
Page 61
Page 61 of 86
Page 62
Page 62 of 86
Page 63
Page 63 of 86
Page 64
Page 64 of 86
Page 65
Page 65 of 86
Page 66
Page 66 of 86
Page 67
Page 67 of 86
Page 68
Page 68 of 86
Page 69
Page 69 of 86
Page 70
Page 70 of 86
Page 71
Page 71 of 86
Page 72
Page 72 of 86
Page 73
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality Committee or Board: Economy and Infrastructure Committee Date of Meeting: 19 November 2025 Report Title: Visitor Levy Scheme - Early Engagement and Future Timescale Report Number: 25/312 Report Author: Suzanne Cumiskey, Economic Development Officer Organisational Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this briefing is to update the Committee on the early engagement phase regarding a potential Visitor Levy Scheme for Perth and Kinross, and to highlight consideration of legislative changes that could affect the proposal and its timeline for consideration. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background 4. Proposal 5. Conclusion 6. Impact and Value Assessment 7. Appendices 2. Recommendations The Committee is asked to: 2.1 Consider and comment on the contents of the report. 2.2 Request that the Strategic Lead, Economy, Development and Planning bring back a report to Council in the late Spring/Summer of 2026, when possible legislative changes to the Visitor Levy Act could be considered together with the analysis of the results of the early engagement stage. 7 Page 73 of 86
Page 74
3. Background Legislation and Engagement 3.1 In May 2024, the Scottish Parliament passed the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act. 3.2 The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 grants local authorities the authority to implement a levy on paid overnight accommodation, with the revenue generated by the levy scheme to be used to develop, support, or sustain local facilities and services substantially used by business and leisure visitors. 3.3 Each Local Authority within Scotland has the delegated authority to decide whether to introduce a levy, what percentage rate it will be set at, and how the revenues can be used. 3.4 In the intervening period since the introduction of the Act, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen Councils have decided to introduce a levy. In Edinburgh, it is set at 5% from July 2026, Glasgow 5% from January 2027, and Aberdeen 7% from April 2027. Shetland, Orkney, and Western Isles Councils have decided not to introduce a levy, whilst Argyll and Bute Council has paused its plans after public consultation. 3.5 For a Visitor Levy Scheme to be implemented, the legislation requires that there must be robust engagement with all stakeholders, including residents, communities, businesses, and visitors. The Visitor Levy Guidance, published by the Scottish Government, clearly sets out the timescales for statutory and non-statutory tasks, providing an indicative timeline of the order in which activities should be undertaken. The guidance outlines that whilst early-stage engagement is non-statutory, it is recommended and considered to be best practice. 3.6 In February 2025 and in line with the guidance, Perth and Kinross Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee agreed to start a period of early engagement after the launch of the Perth and Kinross Tourism Strategy & Action Plan 2025-2030, to understand the potential for a visitor levy in Perth and Kinross. 3.7 The period of early engagement commenced in March 2025 and extended to the end of September 2025. The engagement aimed to get an early indication of residents, communities, and businesses' views as to whether a Visitor Levy should be introduced and how any monies raised could be used to support the sector. 3.8 For information, a new Visitor Levy Guidance was published on 3 October 2025, giving further clarity to local authorities on issues such as levy eligibility, exemptions, and the national visitor levy collection platform. Page 74 of 86
Page 75
Forecasting Figures 3.9 Before commencing the early engagement phase, it was considered beneficial to have a solid evidence base to understand the scale of potential revenues raised from any levy scheme. 3.10 The Moffat Centre Travel and Tourism organisation, an industry specialist, was commissioned to conduct an accommodation market appraisal, to consider estimated levy income under current and forecast conditions up to 2030. 3.11 The commission researched the accommodation bed stock, average occupancy rate, and average room rates, providing a forecast for future income, based on current trends in tourism. 3.12 The types of accommodation included within the scope of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act legislation include Hotels, Hostels, Guest Houses, Bed and Breakfast, Self-Catering and Camping Sites. Accommodation on board a vessel, which is permanently or predominantly situated in one place, is also in scope. 3.13 From the accommodation market appraisal, it was estimated that the introduction of a levy at: - o 1% could generate around £1.6 - £1.8m annually o 3% could generate £4.9 - £5.6m annually o 5% could generate between £8.2 m - £9.3m annually o 7% levy could generate £11.5 - £13m annually 3.14 Forecasting is complicated due to estimating many variables, including future accommodation bed stock levels, occupancy rates, demand, and average room rate, among other factors. The above figures were included in the online Visitor Levy survey consultation. 3.15 The current Visitor Levy legislation from the Scottish Government allows for a percentage of room rates to be levied, which was the basis of The Moffat Centre’s accommodation market appraisal. 3.16 There are indications that legislative changes may be forthcoming and allow Local Authorities to apply a fixed rate or tiered rate, in which case new calculations would need to be made. 3.17 An economic impact assessment of any proposed Visitor Levy scheme would need to be conducted to consider the economic, social and environmental impacts of any such scheme, with consideration given to any legislative changes that may be applied. Page 75 of 86
Page 76
Use of Funds 3.18 The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act states that revenues raised should be reinvested locally in facilities and services that are used by, or substantially for, leisure and business visitors. 3.19 In developing an outline for a visitor levy scheme, Local Authorities should identify their own priorities for development and delivery in their local area. A local authority must have regard to, and align with, the principles of relevant local tourism strategies, as well as other national, regional, and local strategies impacting the visitor economy. 3.20 The Perth and Kinross Tourism Strategy & Action Plan 2025 – 2030 was approved by this Committee on 28 May 2025 and launched in June 2025. Within the plan, the strategic framework outlines four pillars intended to guide the actions in the strategy. 3.21 The revenues raised from a potential Visitor Levy scheme could be reinvested in the following key areas: • Area Promotion and Destination Marketing Objective: Aim to drive up visitation to our area from identified audiences, increasing day visitors, as well as the length of stay and visitor spend • Investment and Infrastructure Objective: Aim to attract inward investment to enhance the visitor experience in the destination, as well as manage the impact on our communities. • Market Development and Internationalisation Objective: Aim to build on key assets, developing new tourism products and visitor experiences • Industry Growth and Resilience Objective. Aim to develop a sustainable visitor economy through supporting businesses to grow, increase levels of well-paid jobs, and build their resilience in a challenging operating environment. 4. Proposal 4.1 The early engagement phase was launched in March 2025. A communications and engagement plan was developed (See Appendix 1). This involved various activities designed to encourage all stakeholders to take part using the Scottish Government’s National Standards for Community Engagement. The standards encourage best practice and are designed to reflect the developing policy relating to participation, engagement, and community empowerment in Scotland. Page 76 of 86
Page 77
Online Survey 4.2 A survey was designed and developed to gauge views on the Visitor Levy from residents, communities, and businesses. The online survey (hosted on the Council's consultation hub) opened on 2 June 2025 and closed on 30 September 2025. 4.3 The survey sought views on support for the levy, percentage rate, number of nights capped exemptions, use of funds, and governance. There were 1590 responses as of 30 September 2025. 4.4 Responses will be analysed by an independent market research company (56 Degree Insights). The survey data will be processed through an analysis programme to extract key insights and themes, which will help shape the development of any future visitor levy scheme. Drop-in Sessions 4.5 Visitor Levy Drop-in Sessions were held in-person in localities across the area, where residents, communities, and businesses were invited to attend in person to find out more about the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act. 4.6 Visitor Levy Drop-in sessions were held in: - • 12 June 2025 Civic Hall, 2 High Street, Perth City • 19 June 2025 Birnam Arts and Conference Centre • 24 June 2025 Blairgowrie Town Hall • 26 June 2025 Pitlochry Festival Theatre • 20 August 2025 Birks Cinema, Aberfeldy • 21 August 2025 Strathearn Arts, Crieff • 27 August 2025 Loch Leven Community Campus, Kinross • 05 September 2025 Civic Hall, 2 High Street, Perth City 4.7 These sessions were well attended and provided Officers with the opportunity to have face-to-face discussions and to listen to feedback and views. Additional online or face-to-face sessions were also organised with other stakeholders such as caravan park providers, agri-tourism businesses or large accommodation providers. 4.8 Across all engagement sessions and meetings held between June and September 2025, there was awareness of the Visitor Levy legislation. While the principle of supporting tourism infrastructure through a levy was acknowledged, the overwhelming tone of feedback from Perth & Kinross businesses was cautious and, in many cases, opposed to local implementation at this stage. Participants described a tourism sector under strain from multiple regulatory, cost, and staffing pressures. Most believed that the levy, while intended to support local services, risked further weakening business viability unless carefully designed and transparently managed at this stage. Page 77 of 86
Page 78
4.9 The main themes coming through the drop-in sessions were consistent with those being highlighted at a national level; some of these themes have been raised with the Scottish Government, the Improvement Service, and COSLA. 4.10 The key themes were • VAT Threshold • Percentage v Fixed Rate • Price Competitiveness & Price Sensitivity • Exemptions (individuals and types of accommodation) • Collection System, Cost of collection, administrative burden • Fairness & Equality • Economic Environment/ Timing of implementation/Policy Layering • Use of Funds • Governance and Transparency Visitor Survey 4.11 To further support the early engagement stage, we commissioned Progressive Partnership to conduct market research on visitors to the area to explore their attitudes towards the introduction of a visitor levy. 4.12 A short questionnaire was designed, including some of the questions from the public consultation, to allow for comparisons, to seek views on whether visitors broadly supported a visitor levy, whether a visitor levy would stop visitors from staying overnight, or lead them to choose an alternative location. 4.13 Face-to-face interviews were undertaken using CAPI interviewing on the ground by experienced trained interviewers (in visitor frequented locations, including Pitlochry High Street and Perth Museum). Interviewers ensured quality data and input by speaking to visitors who were in the area on the day of the interview. Additionally, the interviewers drew visitors’ attention to the Visitor Levy Survey online and invited them to participate, increasing the response levels to the survey. 4.14 132 responses were received against a target of 100. Draft Visitor Levy Scheme and timescale 4.15 Following the early engagement stage, a procurement exercise on Public Contract Scotland was carried out to select and appoint The Moffat Centre to draft a Visitor Levy scheme based on the findings of the early engagement stage. This was in anticipation of a report to be considered by the Council in December 2025. 4.16 The brief is to consider the strategic case, including the background and policy context; benchmarking against other levy schemes; forecasting; the early engagement feedback and analysis; strategic priorities for the local Page 78 of 86
Page 79
authority; the scheme objectives; and an option appraisal where associated economic, social, and environmental impacts will be assessed. 4.17 In a letter to the Economy and Fair Work Committee of the Scottish Parliament dated 22 September 2025, Ivan McKee MSP, Minister for Public Finance for the Scottish Government indicated that additional regulations to the current legislation were scheduled to be lodged in early in 2026. As part of this process, he also indicated the Scottish Ministers were aware that some areas of Scotland were seeking greater flexibility in how the levy is applied and administered. Consequently, they were actively considering extending powers to local authorities, including the option to introduce a single flat rate or tiered flat rate model alongside the existing percentage-based approach. Changes to the duration of the formal consultation process or the implementation period could also be considered. 4.18 Although the timeframe for any such considerations is not set and may extend beyond May 2026, it seems reasonable to wait for these considerations to be progressed further before finalising a draft Visitor Levy Scheme for Perth and Kinross. These changes may address some of challenges highlighted by residents, communities, and businesses during the early engagement process. 4.19 In addition, a Visitor Levy national platform for reporting purposes backed and endorsed by Solace to avoid multiple collection systems is being developed by the Improvement Service. The platform will allow accommodation providers to register and keep their details, submit visitor levy returns, make secure payments and get help and support. The platform will not be used for charging the levy to visitors. The platform is on track to be launched in April 2026, six months in advance of City of Edinburgh accommodation providers submitting their first return in October 2026. It would be beneficial to wait for its launch to understand and make best use of its capabilities. 4.20 It is therefore recommended to wait for these changes to be progressed further and for the Strategic Lead, Economy, Development and Planning to bring back a report to Council in late Spring/Summer 2026 for considering the introduction of a Visitor Levy Scheme for Perth and Kinross or not. 4.21 If approved and in line with current timescale, there is a minimum 12-week formal consultation stage and an 18-month implementation period between any decision and when the authority would start to collect revenues. 4.22 The earliest a Visitor Levy scheme could therefore be implemented would be March 2028. This could change if the timescale is revised as part of the consideration of amendments to the current legislation. 5. Conclusion 5.1 This Committee agreed to carry out an early engagement process with residents, communities and businesses on the introduction of a Visitor Levy Scheme for Perth and Kinross. An intensive engagement process has been carried out and results are being analysed. It was anticipated to submit a draft Page 79 of 86
Page 80
Visitor Levy Scheme to the Council for consideration in December 2025. However, due to possible consideration of legislation changes, it is now proposed to submit a report in late Spring/Summer 2026. 6. Impact and Value Assessment Visitor Levy Early Stage Engagement (Adobe PDF documents) 7. Appendices 7.1 Appendix 1 - Communication and Engagement Plan Page 80 of 86
Page 81
Perth and Kinross Visitor Levy early stage engagement Engagement & Communication Plan Context/Purpose The Visitor Levy Act gives local authorities in Scotland the power to introduce a levy on overnight accommodation based on a percentage of the cost. Local authorities have the power to determine the percentage rate set, the geographical area where it applies and any local exemptions. The authority can also specify a maximum number of nights to apply the levy and whether it applies to all or part(s) of its area. Local authorities that want to introduce a visitor levy are only able to do so after they have consulted with local communities, businesses and the wider tourism sector - through early engagement and a formal consultation. In total these processes would take just over 2 years to conclude if the minimum timescales were applied. For Perth and Kinross, this means that the earliest date a scheme could come into effect would be late Summer 2027. In February 2025, Perth & Kinross Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee agreed to start a period of public consultation to understand whether and how a Visitor Levy could be implemented in the area. Timeline for engagement/decision-making For a Visitor Levy scheme to be successfully implemented it is important that there is appropriate and effective engagement with a range of interested parties. Visitor Levy guidance published by the Scottish Government clearly sets out the timescales for this process. An early engagement process will be launched in Perth and Kinross on Monday 2 June 2025, running until Saturday 30 September 2025 (12 weeks). Appendix 1 7 Page 81 of 86
Page 82
Objectives What do we want target audiences to see, think and do differently as a result of communications associated with the project? See • We want people to see an opportunity to put forward their views on a Visitor Levy and help shape what it would look like in terms of. Think • Would a Visitor Levy work in Perth and Kinross. Could it benefit Perth and Kinross? If so, who should pay it? What rate would it be set at? Who should be exempt from the charges? What should the funds raised be invested in? • I should take this opportunity to play a part in this important decision-making process. Do • Take part in the consultation. • Attend a drop-in event • Tell us their thoughts and suggestions on a Visitor Levy after considering the facts Target audiences/stakeholders • Residents of Perth and Kinross • Elected members • Local parliamentarians • PKC staff • Local businesses • Tourism industry bodies (local and national) • Hospitality industry bodies (local and national) • Executive Leadership Team Page 82 of 86
Page 83
• Perth & Kinross Business Partnership • Perthshire Chamber of Commerce • Community Councils • Visitors Key messages 1. The money raised through a from a Visitor Levy scheme would be ringfenced and could be reinvested in Perth and Kinross to support the tourism sector, in areas such as: • New facilities, infrastructure and services that are used by leisure and business visitors • Area promotion and marketing • The development of new tourism products • Attracting events and festivals • Improvements that enhance the overall Perth and Kinross visitor experience 2. Since residents and visitors use many of the same facilities, the Visitor Levy has the potential to also benefit people who live in Perth and Kinross. 3. Tourism is one of the most important sectors of the Perth and Kinross economy, supporting many jobs. The introduction of a Visitor Levy could provide us with an opportunity to improve our tourism offer even further. 4. No decisions have been made on this yet. The Scottish Parliament has given us an opportunity to look at whether a levy should be introduced in Perth and Kinross, and we need to explore what that would look like and any implications it would have. 5. To ensure that any future proposals align far as possible with the views and expectations of Perth and Kinross visitors, residents, and businesses, we are launching this consultation. 6. Please take this opportunity to help shape this proposal, which is important for the future of Perth and Kinross Page 83 of 86
Page 84
Channels Paid • N/A Earned • Direct engagement with stakeholders through existing business channels. • Engagement with local Facebook pages (community pages, businesses, organisations) to share content and encourage participation. • Face-to-face engagement through organised events. Shared • PKC Consultation Hub – this will host the main online consultation (consultation currently in development). • Perth & Kinross Council Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn. • Internal Council channels – eric news, Managers’ Briefing, Elected Members briefings (face-to-face and print) Owned • Perth & Kinross Council website • Email newsletters • Invest in Perth bulletins, newsletters • Perth City & Towns website and newsletter Internal • Eric news • Eric front page spotlight features • Managers’ Weekly Briefing • PKTV • Elected Members’ Briefing Page 84 of 86
Page 85
Activity plan Date Activity Target audience Progress notes March 2025 EMB issued to elected members following E&I Committee decision. Elected members Issued 2 June 2025 - ongoing Launch of early engagement consultation on new public transport. Open until 30 Sept: • Consultation Hub • Social media with new digital assets (Facebook, X, LinkedIn; Instagram) • Press release • eric news for staff • Email for interested parties • Elected member briefing note • Manager’s Weekly Briefing • Consultation link emailed to identified stakeholder organisations/individuals with narrative and encouragement to take part • Included in Invest In Perth bulletin • Consultation link circulated to community councils • New Visitor Levy web pages and FAQ go live All stakeholders Consultation built on Hub. Social media digital assets ready to go. Completed Analysis being carried out June, July, August 2025 Public community events comms: 12 June 2025 - Civic Hall, 2 High Street, Perth,4pm - 7pm 19 June 2025 - Birnam Arts, Birnam, 4pm - 7pm 24 June 2025 - Blairgowrie Town Hall, 4pm - 7pm 26 June 2025 - Pitlochry Festival Theatre, 4pm - 7pm All stakeholders Completed Analysis being carried out Page 85 of 86
Page 86
Date Activity Target audience Progress notes 27 August 2025 - Loch Leven Community Campus, Kinross, 4pm - 7pm • Elected member briefing with details • Press release • Social media support for each event • Consultation Hub events • IIP monthly bulletin • Eric news • Brevo emails for each event August – September 2025 Visitor survey Visitors Survey carried out by Progressive Partnership Analysis being carried out August – September 2025 Online session for caravan parks’ providers Caravan parks’ providers Completed to understand impact on lower costs holidays providers Analysis being carried out August - September 2025 Roundtable discussion with agri-tourism providers Agri-Tourism Completed to understand impact on agri-tourism businesses and their offers. Analysis being carried out August- September 2025 One to One discussions with large accommodation providers Large accommodation providers Completed to understand impact on large accommodation providers and their offers. Analysis being carried out Page 86 of 86