Appendix 1 - PK Visitor Levy Consultation Report Updated (February 2026)
Perth and Kinross Council · 17 June 2026
Back to Perth and Kinross Council — 17 June 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Full Sample Analysis Consultation undertaken by Perth & Kinross Council Updated Report and Analysis conducted by 1st February 2026
Page 2
defines who we are and where we come from. Our home turf, the Edinburgh area, sits on the 56 Degree North line of latitude and we provide precise direction and insights looking at your business issues from every possible angle. Jim Eccleston Duncan Stewart
Page 3
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 The introduction of visitor levies in Scotland was formalised with the passing of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act in July 2024. This legislation gives local councils the power to introduce a tax on paid overnight accommodation, with the aim of generating revenue to support local infrastructure, culture, and tourism services. Each council has the flexibility to set its own rate, cap the number of chargeable nights, decide on exemptions (e.g. for benefits recipients), and establish advisory forums for consultation with local stakeholders before implementing a scheme. Edinburgh is leading the rollout, with a 5% levy on the pre-VAT cost of overnight stays coming into effect from July 2026. The levy will be capped at five nights per stay, with providers retaining a small percentage to cover administration costs. The city anticipates raising up to £50 million per year by 2028, which will be invested in tourism infrastructure, cultural events, and local services. Glasgow has also approved its own scheme, due to begin in 2027, with a similar 5% charge. Other local authorities are in various stages of consultation or early development. Visitor levies have attracted concern from parts of the tourism industry. Organisations such as the Scottish Tourism Alliance have warned that, without simplification, the levy could pose an administrative burden on businesses—particularly small accommodation providers—and reduce Scotland’s competitiveness as a destination. Perth & Kinross Council undertook their own consultation amongst businesses, residents and visitors over the summer of 2025. Having collected information from 615 respondents, 56 Degree Insight were then appointed to analyse and report on the results. Separate crosstabulations provide additional detail and accompany this report. In addition, within the appendix, we have reported on the key findings to emerge from the drop-in sessions run by the Council. It was not possible to incorporate this within the main body of the report due to the format of data collection (reported by a third party) Introduction Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026
Page 4
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Following the analysis of the 615 respondents to the end of August and the subsequent report, in an attempt to obtain a larger and more robust understanding of the views of the different stakeholder groups to a potential Visitor Levy, the survey remained open for another month until the end of September. There had been understandable concern from Convenors that only 2% of the sample were visitors (n=15). By keeping the survey open, by the end of September some 1,590 responses were received in total and this report provides an update to the August report based on a much larger sample size. However, the 1,590 responses included a large spike of completions over two days on the 4/5 September which indicated that potentially a specific trade association/ or group of individuals mobilised to submit a batch of responses – ostensibly by visitors. In total, some 464 ‘visitors’ suddenly appeared in the data over these two dates. Given that this data looked extremely suspicious having appeared in a very short period of time, it was agreed that they should be removed from the core analysis in this report – but presented separately in the appendix. Therefore, this report was based on the following completions: • Businesses: 237 • Residents/community groups: 688 • Visitors: 149 • TOTAL: 1,126 However, to ensure full transparency, this accompanying report includes all of those respondents excluded in the previous report – 1,590 responses in total, 613 from visitors. W still believe that the previous report is based on a more robust sample of responses and that some or all of the additional visitor responses reported in this report may be spurious, however, by producing two versions of the report, full scrutiny of the results is possible. In an attempt to obtain a more robust sample of visitors, the Council commissioned Progressive Partnership to conduct an additional survey of visitors via on street interviews in Perth City and Pitlochry High Street. Given the different methodology and questions used, it is not appropriate to attempt to incorporate these responses within the online survey analysis. However, we have provided a summary of the key results to emerge in Appendix 1. Update to previous report – 1st February 2026 Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026
Page 5
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 To provide the context of the results, it is important to be aware of the information provided to all respondents prior to taking the survey: Help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy. In May 2024, the Scottish Parliament passedthe Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act.This Act gives local authorities the ability to charge a set percentage on overnight accommodation paid by visitors and tourists. Then, in February 2025, Perth and Kinross Council agreed to start a period of public consultation to understand whether and how a Visitor Levy should be implemented in the Council's area. The results of this consultation will help to inform whether a Visitor Levy is introduced, who would be subject to it, and what the money raised would be spent on. Any resulting 'scheme' will be put to Perth & Kinross Council in December 2025 for a decision on whether to introduce a levy. It is estimated that: The introduction of a1%Visitor Levy in Perth and Kinross could generate around£1.6 -£1.8mannually. A5%visitor levy could generate between£8.2 -£9.3mannually A7%levy would generate£11.5 -£13mannually (These figures are subject to revision.) All money raised would be ring-fenced for local investment in facilities and services that are used by, or substantially for, leisure and business visitors (apart from a small amount reclaimed by the Council to cover the costs of administering the scheme). This includes infrastructure, events and culture, as well as improvements to destinations that enhance the visitor experience. Because residents and visitors use many of the same things, the Visitor Levy has the potential to improve life for residents as well as visitors. If Council approves the introduction of a Visitor Levy, we have to wait a minimum of 18 months between that decision and whenwestart to collect income. In Edinburgh, for example, the decision to go ahead was taken on 24 January 2025 and income will be collected for visits that happen from 24 July 2026. We expect Perth and Kinross Council to decide on a Perth and Kinross Visitor Levy in December 2025, so the earliest it could be implemented would be September 2027. Why your views matter To make sure the proposal for the scheme meets the needs of our visitors, residents, and businesses -and make life better for everyone in the area -we are asking for your input. We want to know whether we should in fact introduce a Visitor Levy, who you think the levy should apply to, where you think any funds raised could have the biggest impact, and how we should monitor the impact. The results could inform a draft Visitor Levy scheme setting out the levy’s objectives, timeline, percentage rates and how any money raised would be re-invested.
Page 6
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 43% 11% 3% 39% 1% 1% 0% 3% I am a resident of Perth and Kinross I run, or I am responding on behalf of, a business in Perth and Kinross I invest or own property in Perth and Kinross, but I do not live in the area I am a visitor to Perth and Kinross I am part of a representative group for business or tourism I am a representative of a local community council or other community group I work in Perth and Kinross, but I do not live in the area Other Base: All 1,590 respondentsl PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS: “Please choose the option that best describes you"Overall, some 1,590 respondents started the survey – and although most completed it, quite large numbers did not do so. The largest proportion of respondents were residents of the Council area (43% - 674 respondents). The next larges proportion were businesses and business interest groups (15% - 237 respondents). By including the responses from 4-5 September, there is a much bigger sample of visitors than was the case in the earlier reports – now 39% of the overall sample and 613 responses.
Page 7
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 55% 29% 16% 48% 34% 18% 30% 50% 21% Yes No Don't know/not sure % BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Levels of support for Perth & Kinross Council’s overall aims for tourism Base: All 1,590 respondentsl (237 Businesses, 688 residents/community groups, 613 P&K visitors) Perth and Kinross Council's overall aim for the area's tourism sector is to continue to grow the visitor economy with a focus on our key strengths of scenery, landscape, history, culture, and outdoor pursuits. We want to increase the number of visits, encourage visitors to stay longer, and to visit throughout the year. “Do you think that this aim reflects Perth and Kinross's existing and potential tourism offer?" Having been presented with the overall tourism sector aim of the Council, there was broad agreement amongst businesses and residents that this aim reflected the existing and potential tourism offer – though large proportions were unsure. Businesses were especially likely to be in agreement (55% vs 29% who did not). Across the 613 sample of visitors, a large proportion are unsure (21%), whilst larger proportions disagree that the aim reflects the area’s existing and potential tourism offer than agree (50% vs 30%).
Page 8
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 70% 15% 10% 7% 7% 5% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% Scenery and Natural Beauty Outdoor Activities and Walking Routes Local Culture and Heritage Hospitality and Friendly People Visiting Friends and Family Central Location and Accessibility Wildlife and Natural Environment Quietness and Unspoiled Nature Tourism Levy Concerns High Street and Local Shops Specific Attractions (e.g., Loch Leven) Attractions of Perth and Kinross to visitors Base: 440 visitors “If you are a visitor to Perth and Kinross, what first attracted you to the area?"Those 440 visitors who provided a response to what first attracted them to the area were most likely to reference the area’s scenery and beauty (70%). Outdoor activities (15%), and local culture and heritage (10%) were also mentioned by significant numbers.
Page 9
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 27% 19% 19% 17% 12% 11% 10% 7% 7% 7% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% Opposition to Visitor Levy (General) Marketing and Promotion of the Area Public Toilets Public Transport Enhancement Support for Local Businesses and Economy Public Realm Improvements (General) Cleaning up area (e.g. litter or dog poo) Accommodation for Staff Events Programming and Support Road Infrastructure Improvement Financial Management and Council Efficiency Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement Active Travel Infrastructure (Walking & Cycling) Ranger Services and Countryside Management Campervan and Motorhome Facilities Attracting Visitors and Improving Perth's Appeal Community Empowerment and Local Involvement Maintenance of Public Spaces (Parks & Recreation) The single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector: BUSINESSES “What do you think would be the single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector? Base: 214 businesses Respondents were then asked what would be the one most useful way to invest any monies raised through a visitor levy scheme. Amongst businesses, 27% simply said they were opposed to a visitor levy, making this their main response. Otherwise, 19% mentioned marketing and promotion of the area, 19% suggested investment in public toilets and 17% suggested public transport enhancements.
Page 10
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 28% 17% 14% 13% 11% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% Public Toilets Opposition to Visitor Levy (General) Public Transport Enhancement Public Realm Improvements (General) Cleaning up area (e.g. litter or dog poo) Road Infrastructure Improvement Campervan and Motorhome Facilities Support for Local Businesses and Economy Marketing and Promotion of the Area Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement Events Programming and Support Active Travel Infrastructure (Walking & Cycling) Attracting Visitors and Improving Perth's Appeal Accommodation for Staff Ranger Services and Countryside Management Maintenance of Public Spaces (Parks & Recreation) Addressing Anti-Social Behaviour and Safety Financial Management and Council Efficiency Community Empowerment and Local Involvement Support for Culture and Heritage Tourism Strategy and Planning The single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector: RESIDENTS “What do you think would be the single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector? Base: 591 residents / community groups Amongst residents, 17% were opposed to a visitor levy and provided this as their response – however the largest proportion (28%) felt that investment in public toilets would be most valuable.
Page 11
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 37% 24% 10% 10% 10% 9% 6% 6% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Opposition to Visitor Levy (General) Public Toilets Public Transport Enhancement Campervan and Motorhome Facilities Support for Local Businesses and Economy Road Infrastructure Improvement Public Realm Improvements (General) Cleaning up area (e.g. litter or dog poo) Events Programming and Support Active Travel Infrastructure (Walking & Cycling) Marketing and Promotion of the Area Accommodation for Staff Financial Management and Council Efficiency Maintenance of Public Spaces (Parks & Recreation) Ranger Services and Countryside Management Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement Attracting Visitors and Improving Perth's Appeal Tourism Strategy and Planning Community Empowerment and Local Involvement Addressing Anti-Social Behaviour and Safety Support for Culture and Heritage The single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector: VISITORS “What do you think would be the single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector? Base: 483 visitors Amongst 483 visitors who responded to this question, some 37% of them simply said they were opposed to a visitor levy generally. Otherwise, 24% again suggested investment in public toilets should be the priority.
Page 12
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 33% 21% 19% 12% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% Public Toilets Public Transport Enhancement Public Realm Improvements (General) Road Infrastructure Improvement Marketing and Promotion of the Area Cleaning up area (e.g. litter or dog poo) Campervan and Motorhome Facilities Events Programming and Support Active Travel Infrastructure (Walking & Cycling) Support for Local Businesses and Economy Accommodation for Staff Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement Ranger Services and Countryside Management Attracting Visitors and Improving Perth's Appeal Maintenance of Public Spaces (Parks & Recreation) Community Empowerment and Local Involvement Support for Culture and Heritage Opposition to Visitor Levy (General) Addressing Anti-Social Behaviour and Safety The single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector: THOSE WHO SUPPORT A VISITOR LEVY “What do you think would be the single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector? Base: 429 respondents in support of a visitor levy Later in the survey, respondents were asked explicitly whether they supported or opposed a Visitor Levy. The responses to this earlier question of those who were in support (across all stakeholder types) are provided opposite. For this positive group, 33% wanted investment in public toilets, 21% wanted investment in public transport and 19% wanted public realm improvements.
Page 13
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 41% 20% 10% 8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Opposition to Visitor Levy (General) Public Toilets Support for Local Businesses and Economy Public Transport Enhancement Road Infrastructure Improvement Cleaning up area (e.g. litter or dog poo) Campervan and Motorhome Facilities Marketing and Promotion of the Area Public Realm Improvements (General) Events Programming and Support Financial Management and Council Efficiency Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement Accommodation for Staff Attracting Visitors and Improving Perth's Appeal Maintenance of Public Spaces (Parks & Recreation) Ranger Services and Countryside Management Active Travel Infrastructure (Walking & Cycling) Addressing Anti-Social Behaviour and Safety Tourism Strategy and Planning The single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector: THOSE WHO OPPOSE A VISITOR LEVY “What do you think would be the single most useful way to invest money raised through a Visitor Levy to support the local tourism sector? Base: 832 respondents who oppose a visitor levy The responses to this earlier question of those who were opposed to a visitor levy (again across all stakeholder types) are provided opposite. Amongst this group, the largest proportion did not provide any specific suggestions given their overall opposition (41%). The only suggestion made by as many as one in five was again, to invest in public toilets (20%).
Page 14
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Respondents were then asked to indicate what they would see as s suitable rate for a Visitor Levy. Again, before looking at responses, it is important to be aware of the details presented to them in the survey form: Total costVAT (20%)Room costLevy rate £120£20£100No levy £123.60£20.60£1033% £126£21£1055% £128.40£21.40£1077% Rate of the Visitor Levy The exact rate of the Visitor Levy will ultimately align with the objectives that are set for it: objectives that are more ambitious are likely to need either a higher percentage rate, or a longer timescale. It is estimated that: •A1% Visitor Levy in Perth and Kinross could generate around£1.6m -1.8m per year. •A 3% levy could generate between £4.9m and £5.6m per year. •A 5% levy could generate between £8.2 -£9.3m per year. •A 7% levy could generate between £11.5 -£13m per year. These figures are subject to revision The table below shows an example of how the visitor levy would be worked out, and how different rates would affect the overall cost.
Page 15
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 30% 15% 27% 3% 24% 1% 14% 10% 35% 3% 32% 6% 48% 14% 18% 2% 17% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 7% BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS The most suitable Levy rate amongst those who think Visitor Levies should be considered Base: 554 respondentsl (71 Businesses, 338 residents/community groups, 127 P&K visitors) “If you think Perth and Kinross should consider introducing a Visitor Levy, what do you think is a suitable rate?” Mean: 2.8% 3.5% 2.3% Those respondents who think a Visitor Levy should be considered by Perth and Kinross Council were asked what would be a suitable rate. Businesses and visitors were most likely to suggest a lower rate – 72% and 80% respectively suggesting 1-3%. Residents were more likely to suggest a slightly higher amount (3.5% on average).
Page 16
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 15% 16% 34% 9% 4% 5% 14% 3% 5% 24% 26% 8% 15% 12% 9% 4% 6% 3% 30% 7% 17% 12% 5% 19% 2% 13% 8% Impact on Tourism and Visitor Numbers Revenue Generation and Allocation Impact on Local Businesses and Economy Infrastructure and Service Improvements Comparison to Other Regions and Countries Fairness and Equity Concerns Administrative Burden and Collection Methods Affordability for Visitors and Residents Opposition to the Visitor Levy BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Reasons for suggested Levy percentage rate (all responses) “Please let us know why you chose percentage selected” Base: 731 respondents (116 Businesses, 369 residents/community groups, 223 P&K visitors) Across all respondents, the most common reason for selecting their chosen rate was minimising the impact on tourism and visitor numbers (especially amongst visitors). Revenue generation and allocation was next most common reason provided (especially residents) followed by the impact on businesses and the local economy – the main reason provided by businesses. However, it is more useful to look at how the reasons provided vary by selected rates……
Page 17
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 31% 31% 15% 15% 8% 4% 4% 4% 35% 8% 16% 14% 5% 13% 3% 17% 38% 19% 7% 12% 14% 22% 0% 2% Impact on Tourism and Visitor Numbers Impact on Local Businesses and Economy Revenue Generation and Allocation Infrastructure and Service Improvements Fairness and Equity Concerns Affordability for Visitors and Residents Administrative Burden and Collection Methods Comparison to Other Regions and Countries BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Reasons for suggested Levy percentage rate (those suggesting 1-2%) “Please let us know why you chose percentage selected” Base: 158 respondents Amongst those suggesting the lowest rates (1-2%), minimising the impact on tourism numbers was the main reason across all groups, though similar proportions of businesses cited the impact on businesses and the local economy, whilst large proportions of visitors cited fairness and equity concerns.
Page 18
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 40% 20% 15% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0% 39% 49% 3% 10% 3% 29% 13% 7% 10% 43% 0% 10% 24% 14% 5% 10% Revenue Generation and Allocation Impact on Tourism and Visitor Numbers Administrative Burden and Collection Methods Impact on Local Businesses and Economy Infrastructure and Service Improvements Affordability for Visitors and Residents Comparison to Other Regions and Countries Fairness and Equity Concerns BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Reasons for suggested Levy percentage rate (those suggesting 3-4%) “Please let us know why you chose percentage selected” Base: 147 respondents Amongst those suggesting higher rates of 3- 4%, the opportunities this would provide for revenue generation was a more important reason (40% of businesses and 39% of residents) although 49% of residents and 43% of visitors were concerned by the impact on visitor numbers. A third of visitors suggesting this level cited infrastructural and service improvements as a reason.
Page 19
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 33% 17% 17% 17% 6% 6% 6% 0% 42% 5% 19% 24% 9% 6% 1% 4% 33% 6% 17% 17% 11% 11% 0% 6% Revenue Generation and Allocation Administrative Burden and Collection Methods Comparison to Other Regions and Countries Infrastructure and Service Improvements Impact on Tourism and Visitor Numbers Affordability for Visitors and Residents Impact on Local Businesses and Economy Fairness and Equity Concerns BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS * VISITORS/TOURISTS Reasons for suggested Levy percentage rate (those suggesting 5-7%) “Please let us know why you chose percentage selected” Base: 144 respondents Revenue generation was the main rationale for all of those suggesting 5% or more (42% of residents and 33% of businesses and visitors). 17% of businesses also justified this level to make the administrative burden and collection methods worthwhile, because it was comparable to rates charged elsewhere, and because this would deliver infrastructural and service improvements.
Page 20
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 23% 17% 11% 6% 6% 9% 13% 4% 1% 1% 3% 6% 4% 0% 2% 21% 25% 11% 15% 10% 4% 3% 6% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3% 1% 1% 26% 22% 8% 2% 7% 14% 2% 7% 3% 4% 2% 1% 1% 6% 1% Oppose Visitor Levy Due to Negative Impacts Reduce Council Waste and Improve Efficiency Support Local Businesses and Economy Improve Perth City Center's Attractiveness Invest in Infrastructure and Public Services Advocate for Fair and Equitable Taxation Lower Taxes and Fees for Tourism Businesses Utilize Existing Funding and Resources Enhance Marketing and Promotion of Perthshire Provide Facilities for Motorhomes and Campers Encourage Private Sector Investment and Innovation Address Issues with Short-Term Lets and Licensing Improve Public Transport and Parking Address Cost of Living and Affordability Promote Sustainable Tourism Practices BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Amongst those who oppose a Visitor Levy, other suggestions on how to invest in tourism “If you don't support a Visitor Levy, do you have any other suggestions for how to make sure investment in tourism infrastructure and services is sufficient and sustainable?” Base: 814 respondents (141 Businesses, 272 residents/community groups, 375 P&K visitors) Those who do not support a Visitor Levy were asked for suggestions on how to ensure tourism investment is sufficient and sustainable. Large proportions of each stakeholder group simply stated they were opposed to a Visitor Levy without providing other solutions (23% of businesses, 21% of residents and 26% of visitors). Otherwise, three suggestions were most likely to be provided – reducing council waste and improving efficiency, that they should be actively supporting local businesses and the local economy and improving Perth city centre’s attractiveness.
Page 21
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Prior to being asked to provide their opinions on the potential to cap the levy on numbers of nights stayed, to partly introduce it geographically, and seasonal options, respondents were provided with the information below: Where and when the levy should apply The legislation allows local authorities to set a maximum number of nights to apply the Visitor Levy for each booking. For example, in Edinburgh, the levy will apply for a maximum of five nights, while in Glasgow the council has proposed not to have a cap. We are legally allowed to decide whether the levy should apply to the whole local authority area, or to only a part (or multipleparts) of it. For example, it could apply to visitors staying in Perth city, but not to those staying in a more rural town. Many accommodation providers in Perth and Kinross are in rural areas. Excluding these areas from the scheme would decrease the overall revenue, but may encourage visitors to stay outwith the city area. However, this might disproportionately increase pressure on rural services, without the support of income from a visitor levy to manage the increased demand. A Visitor Levy can be applied year-round, or during only a part of the year (e.g. March to October). Choosing to implement it for only part of the year could encourage more out-of- season tourism, but would decrease the overall income from the scheme. There is also the potential that having a period of non-enforcement would make administration more complicated for businesses.
Page 22
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 16% 7% 37% 14% 11% 7% 6% 2% 28% 11% 27% 9% 8% 7% 7% 4% 16% 9% 39% 18% 7% 4% 3% 5% No Not sure-no preference Other Yes - 1 or 2 nights Yes - 3 nights Yes - 5 nights Yes - 7 nights Yes - more than 7 nights BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Capping the Levy based on nights stayed “Do you think there should there be a cap on the number of nights visitors have to pay the levy” Base: 1,471 respondents (221 Businesses, 628 residents/community groups, 570 P&K visitors) Some 16% of both visitors and businesses do not feel there should be a cap on the number of nights visitors have to pay the levy. On the other hand, 28% of residents to believe there should be a cap. Amongst those who feel there should be a cap, businesses and visitors are more likely to suggest one to three nights (25% and 27% respectively) than residents (18%).
Page 23
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 49% 21% 30% 62% 12% 26% 28% 19% 53% 86% 9% 5% 19% 21% 60% Whole region Part of the region Not sure/no preference BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Support a Visitor Levy Oppose a Visitor Levy Geographical application of a Visitor Levy “Do you think a Visitor Levy should apply to the whole region, or only in certain areas?” Base: 1,236 respondents (173 Businesses, 538 residents/community groups, 482 P&K visitors, 456 who support the Levy, 692 who oppose the Levy) Larger proportions of businesses and residents felt that a visitor levy should apply to the whole region rather than just certain areas – larger proportions of visitors were simply unsure. This was especially the case amongst residents and amongst those in support of a visitor levy generally
Page 24
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 42% 25% 20% 11% 7% 6% 5% 2% 1% 1% Strongly oppose the levy Apply levy in urban areas/Perth city only Concerns about negative impact on rural areas and small businesses Apply levy in specific high-tourism areas (e.g., Highland Perthshire, Pitlochry) Questionnaire bias and lack of 'no levy' option Apply levy region-wide for equitable distribution of funds Levy as a means to address over-tourism and infrastructure strain Levy should target tourists, not residents Exempt locals or business travelers Levy should support public transport improvements Where Levy should be applied amongst those who feel it should be geographically restricted “If you selected ‘part of the region’ above, please tell us where you think it should be applied, and why you think that” Base: 339 respondents Amongst the 339 respondents who selected ‘part of the region’, other than the 42% who simply said they strongly opposed the levy, the main suggestions were that it should be applied in urban areas/Perth only (25%, concerns about the impact of the levy on rural areas and small businesses (0%), and that it should be applied in ‘high-tourism areas’ such as Highland Perthshire and Pitlochry (11%).
Page 25
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 34% 31% 34% 53% 22% 24% 25% 25% 50% Whole year Part of the year Not sure/no preference BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Seasonal application of Levy “Do you think a Visitor Levy should apply for the whole year or only for part of the year?” Base: 1,215 respondents (169 Businesses, 529 residents/community groups, 476 P&K visitors) A larger proportion of residents felt that the tourism levy should be applied for the whole year rather than part of the year. There was more of a mixed set of views among visitors and businesses.
Page 26
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 24% 23% 20% 17% 10% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% Summer/Peak Season Only (June-Sept) No Levy at Any Time Discourage Off-Season Levy Concerns about Levy Implementation and Impact April to October Levy Should Apply to Specific Areas/Events Festive Period (Christmas/Hogmanay) May to September Winter Only Year-Round Levy (potentially scaled) How Levy should be applied seasonally – amongst those who felt it should be “If you selected ‘part of the year’ above, please tell us when you think it should be applied, and why you think that” Base: 452 respondents Amongst the 452 respondents who felt that any Levy should be applied seasonally, the main suggestions were that it should be summer season only (24%) or that an off- season levy should simply be discouraged (23%).
Page 27
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 At this stage in the consultation, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they supported the introduction of a Visitor Levy. The below introduction and explanation were provided before they responded: General support The Visitor Levy charges visitors a proportion of their accommodation cost to develop, support, or sustain facilities used by, or substantially for, visitors. Because visitors use many of the same services as residents, the money raised by a Visitor Levy has the potential to help improve things for residents and visitors alike. We know that your answer to a question about ‘general’ support might change when the details are refined. This question is intended to help us understand whether –if we get everything right –you think it would be a good thing for Perth and Kinross.
Page 28
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 24% 70% 46% 49% 12% 83% Support a Visitor Levy Oppose a Visitor Levy BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Levels of support for a Visitor Levy in Perth and Kinross? “In general, do you support the idea of a Visitor Levy in Perth and Kinross?” Base: 1,590 respondents (237 Businesses, 688 residents/community groups, 613 P&K visitors) When asked whether they supported or opposed a visitor levy, across the whole sample, a majority opposed it (65%), with 29% in support and 6% unsure. Visitors were most strongly opposed (83%), followed by businesses (70%). There was more of a balanced viewpoint amongst residents with 46% in support and 49% in opposition. OVERALL: Support 29% Oppose 65% DK 6%
Page 29
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 It was then explained to respondents that national exemptions to paying any such levies were already in place – and the description below explained to them how this worked and the options available for Local Authorities. They were subsequently asked if they felt any others should be exempt on that basis Exemptions There are some groups who are nationally legally exempt from paying the Visitor Levy. These include those who use overnight accommodation as their only or main residence (for reasons like homelessness, poor housing conditions, experiencing domestic abuse, or being an asylum seeker or refugee). It also includes people who are in receipt of the following: • Disability living allowance • Disability allowance • Attendance allowance • Pension age disability benefit • Personal independence payment. It is up to the local authority to decide whether those who act as carers for people in receipt of these payments should be asked to pay the levy, and whether to grant exemptions to any other group of people. The law allows us to either exempt people at the point of payment, or offer them a reimbursement after their stay. The formercould reduce the financial burden on people in receipt of benefits, but would be tricky for accommodation providers to administer, as they would have to see proof of the reason for exemption, and handle personal and sensitive data. The latter would mean visitors due reimbursements might have to wait to receive their repayment, and increaseadministrative burden on the local authority. Edinburgh, Argyll and Bute, and Highland Councils are all proposing the reimbursement option. A National Digital Portal is being developed to support accommodation providers to collect and remit the funds collected to the council, as well as to allow eligible visitors to claim reimbursement.
Page 30
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 36% 2% 15% 6% 11% 6% 8% 15% 8% 3% 36% 20% 10% 9% 6% 11% 8% 4% 5% 5% 36% 5% 26% 20% 10% 3% 4% 2% 3% 1% Complete Exemption - No Levy Local Residents Exemption UK/Scottish Nationals Exemption Exemption for Vulnerable Groups (Benefits, Low Income, Pensioners) Specific Groups (Students, Armed Forces, Charities, etc.) Exemption for Carers and Disabled Individuals Business Travelers Exemption Administrative Complexity and Cost Concerns Exemption for Medical Reasons Exemption for Children and Young People BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Other suggested Exemptions “If you think there are any groups of people who should be exempt from paying the levy (in addition to those set out in the legislation), please tell us who here and explain why” Base: 655 respondents (87 Businesses, 239 residents/community groups, 300 P&K visitors) When asked about other groups that should be exempt from the levy, again, those opposed to the levy simply reiterated that there should be complete exemption (no levy) – 36% of businesses, residents and visitors responded in this way. Some 20% of residents felt that they should be exempt (only 2% of businesses agreed), while 26% of visitors felt there should be exemptions for UK/Scottish nationals.
Page 31
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 45% 20% 35% 51% 14% 35% 68% 5% 28% Not have to pay the visitor levy at the point of booking/payment Be reimbursed by the local authority later Not sure/no preference BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Managing exemptions and reimbursements “There are different ways we could manage exemptions and reimbursements. Do you think exempt visitors should…….” Base: 1,590 respondents (237 Businesses, 688 residents/community groups, 613 P&K visitors) In terms of how best to manage exemptions, most popular amongst all three stakeholder groups (especially visitors) was not having to pay it at the point of booking – this was much more popular than being reimbursed by the local authority later.
Page 32
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Details were then provided to respondents about the role of a Visitor Levy Forum before being asked about potential and appropriate members…… Governance and Business Support If the Council chooses to implement a Visitor Levy, we must also establish a 'Visitor Levy Forum'. This forum is advisory, and its purpose is to provide advice to the local authority on various areas relating to the operation of a Visitor Levy scheme. The membership of the Forum is up to the local authority, but it has to have a good balance of representatives from communities,and tourism businesses and organisations.
Page 33
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 87% 69% 53% 57% 46% 45% 32% 16% 73% 67% 61% 51% 49% 40% 42% 25% 70% 67% 61% 51% 37% 50% 36% 24% Accommodation sector representatives Local tourism organisations Representatives from local communities Representatives of other businesses Local authority representatives National tourism bodies Local cultural organisations Representatives of children and young people BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Membership of a Visitor Levy Forum “Who should be on the Visitor Levy Forum?” Base: 1,590 respondents (237 Businesses, 688 residents/community groups, 613 P&K visitors) Four types of representatives were generally felt most appropriate to be on a Visitor Levy Forum across all stakeholder groups – accommodation sector representatives, local tourism organisations, representatives from local communities and representatives of other businesses.
Page 34
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 22% 14% 10% 9% 8% 8% 5% 4% 4% Community Representatives Visitor Representation Tourism Sector Stakeholders Health and Social Care Advocates Business and Economy Experts Accommodation Providers Local Government and Leadership Environmental and Conservation Groups Transport and Infrastructure Representatives Additional members suggested “If you think there is anyone else who should be represented at a Visitor Levy Forum, who?” Base: 278 respondents In addition, 278 respondents provided additional suggestions regarding representation on a Forum – community representatives was the most popular additional type of member (22%) whilst 14% suggested visitor representation (inflated by visitors in the sample, 26% of whom suggested this).
Page 35
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Business support that would be offered to businesses by Perth & Kinross Council was then explained in advance of obtaining their opinions on whether they should follow the ‘Edinburgh example’….. If Perth and Kinross does go ahead with a Visitor Levy, support will be offered to businesses to help them adjust to the new requirements. However, we acknowledge that there will still likely be increased administration costs or time for some accommodation providers. To help with these costs, Edinburgh Council has agreed that providers keep up to 2% of the revenue their business collects from the Visitor Levy. For example, if an accommodation provider collected £5000 in Visitor Levy funds from their visitors per year, they would keep £125 towards theiradministration costs.
Page 36
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 77% 17% 7% 66% 23% 10% 51% 34% 15% Yes No Not Answered BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Business Support – and appropriateness of the Edinburgh approach: “Do you think we should offer a similar scheme in Perth and Kinross?” Base: 1,228 respondents (193 Businesses, 564 residents/community groups, 437 P&K visitors) The potential to retain a portion of the visitor levy monies to help address administration costs was popular: 77% of businesses were in favour as were 66% of residents and 51% of visitors.
Page 37
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 7% 25% 6% 2% 60% 19% 41% 8% 1% 30% 17% 32% 7% 2% 42% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS If you said yes, what percentage do you think an accommodation provider should be allowed to keep? Base: 655 respondents (124 Businesses, 337 residents/community groups, 179 P&K visitors) “If you said yes, what percentage do you think an accommodation provider should be allowed to keep?”Not surprisingly, businesses were most likely to suggest that the should be allowed to keep 5% of costs (60%). For residents, 2%, similar to Edinburgh, was the most common suggestion (41%), while for visitors, 5% was the most common response.
Page 38
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 The pros and cons of the inclusion of non-VAT registered businesses was then explained as detailed below, before obtaining views and opinions of the respondents…… Accommodation providers earning less than £90,000 per year do not have to register for VAT. Many small accommodation providers in Perth and Kinross are not VAT-registered. The legislation allows us to decide whether accommodation providers who are not VAT-registered have to charge their guests a Visitor Levy. Research conducted by colleagues at City of Edinburgh Council indicates that businesses earning less than c.£81,000 per year are unlikely to be pushed over the VAT registration limit by a levy of around 5%. Excluding non-VAT-registered businesses would result in a lower total revenue, and less investment in visitor infrastructure and business support. On the other hand, including them may lead to increased taxes for small businesses earning between £81,000 and £90,000 per year, because the legislation mandates that the Visitor Levy is applied before VAT.
Page 39
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 28% 61% 12% 39% 38% 23% 14% 55% 30% Yes No Not sure/no preference BUSINESSES RESIDENTS/COMMUNITY GROUPS VISITORS/TOURISTS Application of a VAT threshold “Do you think all accommodation providers, including those not registered for VAT, should be covered by a levy?” Base: 1,465 respondents (225 Businesses, 638 residents/community groups, 555 P&K visitors) Amongst businesses, there was strong support that those not registered for VAT should not be covered by the levy (61%) – 28% felt all should be covered. On the other hand, similar proportions of residents felt that all accommodation providers should be covered than only those VAT registered (39% and 38% respectively). Visitors’ responses were more in line with those from businesses with 55% believing those not registered for VAT should not be covered by the levy.
Page 40
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 38% 32% 22% 17% 16% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 2% 2% Opposition to Additional Taxes and Levies Negative Impact on Tourism and Economy Impact on Small Businesses and Accommodation Providers Destination Attractiveness and Competitiveness Administrative Burden and Complexity Fairness and Equity Concerns Support for Sustainable Tourism and Infrastructure Local Community Benefits and Investment Concerns about VAT and Tax Implications Transparency and Accountability Alternative Solutions and Suggestions Implementation and Management Exemptions and Inclusions Impact on Residents and Local Travel Concerns about Specific Locations and Rural Areas Consultation Process and Bias Council Efficiency and Resource Allocation Support for the Visitor Levy Visitor Behavior and Environmental Impact Impact on Specific Accommodation Types Final additional comments “Any further comments?” Base: 374 respondents When asked to provide any further comments about the potential levy scheme, 35% provided comments that highlighted what they believed would be its negative impacts on tourism. Some 22% reiterated their general opposition while 14% provided concerns about the impact on residents.
Page 41
APPENDIX 1: Face-to-face Visitor Survey Key Results
Page 42
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 • When the initial reporting of the consultation was undertaken at the beginning of September, only 15 visitors had completed the survey. There was clearly a need for Perth and Kinross Council to better understand the views of visitors regarding a potential visitor levy. • Consequently, Progressive Partnership were commissioned to undertake a small survey of visitors to the area during September. Six interviewer shifts were conducted across Perth city centre and Pitlochry High Street, and some 132 interviews were completed. • The data presented over the next few pages represents the results from some of the key questions. Again, responses to all of the questions asked are contained in the crosstabulations provided separately by Progressive Partnership. • In interpreting the results – and comparing with the core results from the online survey – we would urge some caution. Face to face interviews will always deliver different types of response from an online survey: self-completion in one’s own time will typically deliver more detailed consideration from respondents than when an interviewer is present and there are more time pressures. Human nature also means that inevitably, many respondents will not wish to create any offence and will therefore often provide more positive responses generally. Also, as the surveys are being completed while they are on holiday in the area, there is a natural desire to provide more positive responses to some questions where there may be more consideration when removed from the destination post-event. • Nevertheless, the responses provided do add to our understanding of the views of tourists ‘in the moment’. They are all bona fide visitors – which cannot be guaranteed in the online survey – and as such, the views expressed are clearly important. The data contained in this section
Page 43
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 • 92% of visitors were staying in P&K overnight, 8% were not. However all would consider an overnight visit in the future. • 86% were on a holiday or short break, 14% were VFR • 58% were with their partner/spouse, 19% on their own; 31% had children in the party • There was an even split between first time visitors (51%) and those who had been before (49%) • 45% were male, 54% female • A fairly old audience: 16% adults aged under 35; 29% aged 35-54; 54% aged 55+ • Scots: 19%; Other UK: 39%; Europeans: 26%; Rest of world: 15% Summary results Base: 132 face-to-face interviews with visitors
Page 44
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 • Visitor Levy Awareness: Some 22% were very aware of the concept of visitor levies, 52% were quite aware and 26% were not (net awareness of 73%) • Visitor Levy Experience: 66% had experienced paying for a visitor levy elsewhere with Amsterdam, Barcelona and Berlin the main places mentioned • Visitor Levy Impacts: 11% of visitors had been put off visiting or changed plans because of a visitor levy – 83% had not • The potential for a levy in Perth and Kinross: • Only 3% were aware that it was under consideration • The most popular potential rates were 5% (25%) and 2% (22%) • 78% felt there should be a cap on the number of nights visitors have to pay a levy – 33% thought one night, 20% three nights and 10% 5 nights Visitor levies Base: 132 face-to-face interviews with visitors
Page 45
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 If a visitor levy was introduced in Perth & Kinross, what should the monies raised be spent on? Base: 132 face-to-face interviews with visitors 82% 57% 49% 48% 38% 31% 11% 7% 6% Improving public areas where there are many tourists Clearing up litter left in high tourist areas Improving roads in the region Improving transport in the region To pay for festivals and events To provide more for visitors to do/see Improving the food & drink offering Something else Don't Know
Page 46
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Likelihood to stay in the region if a visitor levy was introduced Base: 132 face-to-face interviews with visitors 54% 27% 8% 4% 4% Very likely Quite likely Neither Not very likely Not at all likely
Page 47
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Levels of support/opposition to a P&K Visitor Levy Base: 132 face-to-face interviews with visitors 71% 11% 17% Very likelyYes - support No - oppose Unsure
Page 48
APPENDIX 2: Summary of Drop-In Sessions
Page 49
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Overall Summary (1) General Overview Across all engagement sessions and meetings held between June and September 2025, there was consistent awareness of the Scottish Government’s legislation enabling local visitor levies. While the principle of supporting tourism infrastructure through visitor contributions 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. VAT Threshold and Administrative Burden A dominant theme across all sessions was concern about the interaction between levy collection and VAT thresholds. Small and micro-businesses — particularly self-catering operators and B&Bs — feared that levy income would be counted as turnover, potentially pushing them into VAT registration. The issue was most frequently raised in Birnam & Dunkeld, Aberfeldy, and Blairgowrie, where self-catering accommodation is prevalent. Administrative complexity was also a key worry, with many small operators describing the cumulative burden of short-term let licensing, Making Tax Digital, and new reporting obligations. Larger businesses also highlighted the resource implications of integrating levy collection into booking systems, particularly for group and corporate contracts. Price Competitiveness and Visitor Demand Price sensitivity was a central concern for almost all participants. Businesses in rural and family-focused destinations warned that even small nightly increases could deter domestic visitors or shorten stays. Larger hotels with international or business guests raised similar concerns about group and event markets, where fixed budgets and contractual pricing make cost absorption difficult. In Perth Cityand Pitlochry, participants also linked the levy to competitiveness between local authorities, suggesting that uneven adoption could shift demand to nearby non-levy areas such as Fife or Stirling.
Page 50
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Overall Summary (2) Fairness and Scope of Application Perceptions of fairness varied by business type. Small operators felt disadvantaged by having to act as tax collectors on behalfof the Council without compensation, while larger hotels emphasised inequities between accommodation and other tourism sectors such as attractions, retail, and food services. Community groups highlighted fairness from another perspective — the need for revenue to benefit the communities most affected by visitor numbers. Use of Funds, Transparency and Local Reinvestment A consistent message across all engagement points was the demand for transparency and visible reinvestment. Participants wanted clear assurance that levy revenues would be ring- fenced and allocated to specific, locally relevant projects rather than absorbed into core budgets. Priority areas identified included road and path maintenance, public toilets, waste management, and signage. Communities such as Kenmore and Aberfeldystressed that small rural settlements should see direct benefit proportional to the visitor impact they experience. Larger businesses proposed annual reporting and joint governance structures to build trust and accountability. Consistency and National Coordination Participants across multiple sessions raised the importance of consistency between local authorities. Businesses operating across more than one area — including Wood Leisure and property managers handling multiple local authority regions — said differing levy rules would be confusing and resource-intensive. Several suggested that national coordination, perhaps through a shared online portal or standardised rate model, would make implementation more workable. Policy Layering and Sector Confidence Many participants viewed the visitor levy within the wider context of “policy layering.” There was a repeated sense that the tourism and hospitality sector is facing too many simultaneous changes — including short-term let regulation, wage increases, business rates revaluation, and evolving environmental standards. This concern was common among both small operators (inBlairgowrie, Aberfeldy, andKinross) and large employers. Several businesses linked this perception to declining confidence in long-term planning and investment within the sector. Communication and Engagement Feedback on the consultation process itself was mixed. Many participants in the early sessions — particularlyPitlochry andBlairgowrie — said they had received limited notice of events or found the timing difficult during the peak tourist season. There was also a call for clearer public information explaining the rationale for a levy, potential exemptions, and how decisions would be taken. Participants suggested that future engagement should include both in-person and sector-specific forums, with transparent publication of findings.
Page 51
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Perth City – Key Findings VAT THRESHOLD Three properties and host workers and tourists Self-caterer raised concerns that the collection of additional income from a levy would push the business above the VAT threshold. They also raised concerns about the logistics of collecting the levy, how it works with OTAs such as booking.com/VRBO and channel managers like Super control etc. With the levy being a % they did feel this would be easier than if a fixed fee per person, per night as they often get multi-generational groups staying and the no of people at any given time can vary substantially. Main concerns were the hidden cost of additional admin and potential costs to the business of amending their systems. Discussed that there was a possibility to exempt those under the VAT threshold; to compensate accommodation providers with a % of what was collected and that this was being looked at a national level. Advised would respond once more detail available. IMPACT ON WORKERS Event Organiser raised concerns about workers in the area staying overnight and the rising cost of an added levy on top of accommodation costs. Workers often staying multiple nights, or for lengthy periods. Additionally, they raised concerns about participations at events from vendors at events staying overnight feeling additional cost to accommodation, on top of rising vendor fees may be off putting. Cited LEZ areas in some cities are starting to impact vendors decisions on which areas they would exhibit in and levy anotherbarrier. More broadly concerns were raised about the impacts on the cultural sector due to rising costs. Thought a levy had the potential to encourage a day visitor market at a time when we want to encourage overnight stays and a longer dwell time. Attendees who may previously have considered an overnight stay will be put off. MARKETING Considered the Visitor Levy survey to be skewed with questions implying that a visitor levy scheme was happening regardless of the consultation results. Thought closure of I centre was an issue with a lack of information, enquired why Council won’t open an iCentre in a vacant shop unit. Explained this was a national decision made by VisitScotland, not a local decision. Council not effectively marketing the area and What’s on. Or that the available information is outdated.
Page 52
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Birnam – Key Findings VAT THRESHOLD · Concern that businesses will be pushed above the VAT Threshold due to collecting income that is not the businesses own income · Concern that it is a tax on a tax (Accommodation Cost + Levy +VAT 20% = Final Cost) · Concern about impacts on a microbusiness/those under VAT threshold where they only have one or two pods. COST TO BUSINESS · Concern about the cost to a business to implement the visitor levy, viewed as a burden to small self-caterers and additional admin. · Questions around whether a business would be compensated, or not by the Local Authority · Concerns that the business was already paying the Local Authority a fee for a short term let license and now being asked to collect a levy on behalf of the Local Authority PRICE COMPETITIVENESS · Concerns a levy will impact on price competitiveness of the area, especially if other Local Authorities do not introduce a visitor levy scheme (self-caterer) · Visitor levy wouldn’t impact price competitiveness; people are used to paying these abroad (resident) · Local Authorities with no visitor levy scheme will be perceived as more attractive to visit as less expensive · Questioned on whether we had looked at other visitor levy schemes in UK and abroad FUNDING · Concern over Scottish Government’s revenue settlement to Local Authorities being reduced, some thought this was inevitable PERCENTAGE VS FIXED · Why can’t it be a fixed fee, why can’t this be changed, why was this agreed? · How can the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act be changed/amended? GOVERNANCE · How would a visitor levy scheme in Perth & Kinross be governed? Who will be on a Visitor Levy Forum? USE OF FUNDS · Mistrust of Council to ensure revenues raised go to services and facilities that impact on residents and visitors
Page 53
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Blairgowrie – Key Findings (1) VAT THREHOLD · Concern that businesses will be pushed above the VAT Threshold due to collecting income that is not the businesses own income · Sense that there is policy layering with small businesses feeling they are over regulated. Another policy such as a visitor levy will encourage more business closures. Not a business-friendly operating environment · Concern the Council hadn’t directly contacted all businesses who are on the short term let registration list to notify them about the levy COST TO BUSINESS · Concern about the cost to a business to implement the visitor levy, viewed as a burden to small self-caterers and additional admin · Queries around whether a business would be compensated, or not by the Local Authority (this is in the survey) · Concerns that the business was already paying the Local Authority a fee for a short term let license and now being askedto collect a levy on behalf of the Local Authority · Some felt they were unpaid tax collectors. We are doing ‘your’ job for you. Small businesses are being asked to do more and more PRICE COMPETITIVENESS · Concerns a levy will impact on price competitiveness of our area, especially if other Local Authorities do not introducea visitor levy scheme · Domestic market is currently ‘cool’, and this will act as another deterrent to put people off. Consumers are very price sensitive at present ENFORCEMENT AND FRAUD · Concern about how the Council will enforce this. Or if the Council will enforce it? Concerns about businesses operating under VAT Threshold not declaring revenues raised · Queries around how the accommodation base has changed in recent years? What analysis of the accommodation stock has the Council conducted? Comments about the decline in hotels in Blairgowrie with only one left COLLECTION OF LEVY · Collection of revenues raised. How will accommodation providers collect the levy? What system will they use? What system will the Council use?
Page 54
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Blairgowrie – Key Findings (2) USE OF FUNDS · Do we know what level of monies will be generated? How do we know it is worth it. How do we know what the forecasting figures are? · Use of the funds. What is the plan? Do you have a plan? · Concerns around on arrival information and the closure of the iCentres. Why did these close? · Concerns that East Perthshire misses out to hotspots such as Pitlochry and Perth City, there is no investment in East Perthshire. Will the funding all be directed at one area? · NEW DMO This is Perthshire. Council not funding local tourism associations. Is that Council funded? Will Visitor Levy be funding it? MARKETING · Concerns residents and businesses don’t know about the Visitor Levy Drop in Sessions · Concern about the overall timing of the consultation during the summer months and at the busiest time. Also, the timing of 4 – 7pm isn’t a good time for self-caterers · How are you promoting the drop-in sessions to residents and businesses. Why didn’t the Council write to us directly as self-caterers. Also stated there was too much communication can’t keep up as a small business owner services and facilities that impact on residents and visitors
Page 55
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Pitlochry – Key Findings (1) MARKETING · Concerns that residents and businesses do not know about the Visitor Levy Drop-in Sessions, only received email the night before the drop-in session, asked how we were promoting the sessions · Concern about the overall timing of the consultation during the summer months and at the busiest time of the year. Also, the timing of 4 – 7pm is not a suitable time for owners self-catering businesses as clashes with check-in · Concern there had not been more engagement with Short Term Let Owners and Campsite and Caravan Owners and asked if specific sessions could be set up · There was a request that we communicate to residents, communities, and businesses on the outcomes of the Visitor Levy Survey and the drop-in sessions. Will this information be in the public domain? PERCENTAGE VS FIXED RATE · Concern there are many good Visitor Levy/City levy models at a fixed rate, why does legislation say it has to be a %? · Concerns legislation is crude and sub-standard and needs revisited, no other country includes residents or has such a high VAT level · Some attendees suggested a gateway levy i.e. at airports when you collect at point of entry and is only applied to international visitors PRICE COMPETITIVENESS · Concerns a levy will impact on price competitiveness of the area, especially if other Local Authorities do not introduce a visitor levy scheme · Domestic market is currently ‘cool,’ and this will act as another deterrent to put people off. Consumers are very price sensitive at present · Concerns around occupancy with a campsite owner stating the business was at low capacity for June with 50% occupancy, with motorhomes choosing not to stay onsite · Example given of the room rates in Pitlochry when Heartland Festival was on and how a further potential 5% would put price sensitive consumers off · Concern business owners would have to absorb the cost when already finding the operating environment challenging · Concern the introduction of a levy will have unintended consequences and push motorhomes into parking illegally/irresponsibly. Also, raised concerns about motorhomes and fire risks when parking close together in car parks · Not enough enforcement of motorhomes by the Council VAT Threshold · Concern that businesses will be pushed above the VAT Threshold due to collecting income that is not the businesses own income. · Sense that there is policy layering with small businesses feeling they are over regulated. Another policy such as a visitor levy will encourage more business closures. Not a business-friendly operating environment
Page 56
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Pitlochry – Key Findings (2) COST TO BUSINESS · Concern about the cost to a business to implement the visitor levy, viewed as a burden to small self-caterers and additional admin. · Queries around whether a business would be compensated, or not by the Local Authority (this is in the survey) · Concerns that the business was already paying the Local Authority a fee for a short term let license and now being asked to collect a levy on behalf of the Local Authority. · Concerns there was no transparency about the Short Term Let licenses and where the money was going (I advised it was a breakeven cost used to pay staff to administer the scheme which we did not previously do. This is advice I was given by Licensing) · Concerns about self-check in and if visitors could now self-check in? Asked if the OTAs could collect the levy on behalf of the business and pay this back to the Council. COLLECTION OF LEVY · Collection of revenues raised. How will accommodation providers collect the levy? What system will they use? What system will the Council use? OTHER Affordable Housing o Need more affordable housing. o Residents can’t afford to live in Pitlochry, housing shortage and no social housing. Community Action Plan. o Community Group can access funding for the CAP so why is a levy needed. iCentres o We can access funding via Concerns around on arrival information and the closure of the iCentres. Why did these close? Thought centres Council owned. Vacant Property and Eyesore Properties o Moray Place, Pitlochry derelict property o Why is Council paying £10k to cover up building on Pitlochry High Street Mistrust around Council’s ability to manage revenues raised
Page 57
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Aberfeldy – Key Findings (1) VAT THRESHOLD · Businesses under the VAT Threshold raised concerns about being pushed above the VAT Threshold · Some stated they would have to reduce the number of bookings they took to stay under threshold; others were concerned about having to absorb the additional costs of a levy due to the ongoing cost-of-living issues · Some stated Association of Scottish Self Caterers had issued communications to all their members to raise awareness that there was no change in the position by HMRC (that income raised from a visitor levy is considered as the businesses income). · Some businesses asked where responsibility sits for changing this/reversing this decision, and who is having these conversations ? · Some stated the hospitality sector is being hardest hit out of all the tourism sector by numerous policies/legislation/post COVID-19, and it is impacting businesses with a high volume of business closures, especially in self- catering. COLLECTION OF LEVY · Concerns were raised about the cost to businesses to implement and administer a levy scheme and how it works with their own internal systems concern · One owner stated the concern about the administration costs is the biggest issue for our business · One owner of multiple self catering lodges asked does the levy apply to the cost of a lodge(farmhouse/exclusive use/lodge) or is it per room, or per person? · Why is it that accommodation providers must collect the levy, why not visitor attractions or restaurants/cafes? · Why can't the levy be at the point of entry, gateway points such as airports and ferries? Discussion around areas that are pushing for this, such as Orkney Council, who want to consider a point of entry tax on ferries/cruise rather than only on their accommodation base, given 50% of all visitors are cruise passengers plus high volumeofmotorhomes · Have we considered other models for collection of a visitor levy? What do other areas do? Switzerland was given as an example where onus is on the visitor to pay. Scottish Tourism Alliance suggested a QR code and wrote again to ScotGov 7 August 2025 pushing again for this and a fixed rate · How would the ‘levy’ show up on a visitor’s bill/ booking confirmation? How would it show up on an OTA booking, such as Booking.com/Expedia? Is it shown as a separate line? Do we have that detail? · One owner of an AirBnB said he would cover the cost of the levy rather than add to the cost for the visitor, however was worried about the impact that would have on his income. Not prepared to charge visitors more and he felt this was the only way. · Air BnB owner worried about quarterly payments as Air BnB collect all the funds and then pay the accommodation owner in arrears. What if he hasn’t received payment and the payment to the LA is due? Also worried about the variable pricing which Air BnB operates and then how the levy would be worked out. · If Air BnB doesn’t collect the levy, will the visitor pay on departure, and if so how? · Re motorhomes, it was suggested that, assuming the majority are hired, the hire company could collect the fee then the van is taken out on hire. · It was noted that in some countries (France highlighted a an example) the tourist tax / fee / charge is paid by self-catering visitors when they collect the key to the property – a credit card is required to release the key and this is when the charge is applied. · In Switzerland, tourists pay their tourist charge at the local tourist office on departure. This appears to be on an honestly basis. the van is taken out on hire.
Page 58
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Aberfeldy – Key Findings (2) USE OF FUNDS · Why are you consulting when there is no plan outlined on how the money will be spent? It is back-to-front · What is the investment plan? Where will you spend the money? · Explained we have various economic and tourism strategies, with some activity being core funded, some we must raise external funding, and that with a 1-year budget cycle, we are not always able to fund multi-year activity. Revenues raised through a levy can be used for revenue/capital and do not have to be spent in the year they were raised · Also, advised we don’t have the details of a Visitor Levy Scheme as we are at an early stage of engagement; however, we do have a framework in Tourism Strategy for where revenues raised might be spent · Some business owners asked if revenue raised would be spent/allocated to the locality where they were generated. · Will the revenues raised be spent in the area where they are collected? Pitlochry will generate a higher amount than Perth City. Isn’t equitable if the money is then spent in the City? Rural areas aren’t seeing the same levels of investment · Concerns funding will plug core budgets and no accountability · Council tax increases for 2025-2026, no improvement to services, weeds/grass cutting/ drains · Council should invest first and demonstrate success, and then introduce a levy VISITOR LEVY SURVEY ANALYSIS · How are you capturing the feedback from the drop-in sessions? How is that being captured? How is it being analysed/ are the survey results going to be weighted? · Who is commissioning the research? Is it the Council? · Explained that the call to action is to complete the Visitor Levy Survey online or that we have paper copies, and we will be conducting an independent analysis of all the survey results · Advised we need to consult with hotels, asked which hotels we had we spoken to, and how we were engaging with the hotels. · Concerns from some that residents may be supportive however, they may not understand the details and, in particular, the impacts on businesses · Suggestion from one exclusive-use self-caterer that responses should be weighted i.e. the responses of residents so should have less weight than the responses from businesses, his reasoning being that the levy has more impact on businesses. PRICE COMPETITIVENESS · Discussion around VAT rates in other countries and how if our VAT rate were lower, maybe the levy wouldn’t have such an impact · Some business owners raised concerns about consumer choices. The example given was of a family spending £ 3,000 at Christmas and comparing their offer to other UK destinations, where a levy isn’t in place. Feeling that this might sway customers' decisions to purchase if PKC has a 5% visitor levy charge · Is the visitor levy capped at a certain number of nights? Has this been agreed? NB Within local flexibilities, we can either cap the number of nights or cap the amount that is ever charged · Price Absorption
Page 59
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Aberfeldy – Key Findings (3) ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY · How are we analysing the economic impacts, positive or negative, of introducing a visitor levy on the visitor economy? · Has an economic impact assessment been conducted yet? NB No scheme in place to assess; however, it is the intention to conduct an economic impact assessment · An assessment should analyse impacts at variable rates: 1%, 3%, 5% · If, after a year, our occupancy levels drop due to the levy, to whom do I complain? · How often is the scheme reviewed? IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY MOTORHOME LEVY · Why aren’t they paying the levy? Why isn’t there a scheme? · it was suggested that, assuming the majority are hired, the hire company could collect the fee then the van is taken out on hire.
Page 60
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Crieff – Key Findings (1) VAT Threshold and Local Flexibility Concerns were raised about how the visitor levy would interact with the VAT threshold. Participants asked whether businesses under the threshold could be exempted locally and whether any discussions had taken place with HMRC to review how levy income is treated for tax purposes. Small accommodation providers felt that, if not addressed, this issue could push microbusinesses into VAT registration. Council officers confirmed that national work was underway on this topic, but no changes had yet been made. Consistency Between Local Authorities Participants emphasised the importance of consistency between different local authorities across Scotland. They felt that if each council adopted its own rate or model, it would create confusion for visitors and administrative complexity for operators who manage properties in multiple areas. Some referenced previous inconsistencies in short-term let licensing as an example of the challenges caused by differing local approaches. Administrative Burden and Sector Fairness Businesses questioned why accommodation providers were the only group required to collect and remit the levy. They believed that this placed an unfair administrative and financial burden on one part of the tourism sector, while others who benefit from visitors — such as attractions, retailers, and restaurants — would not contribute directly. Participants described an already challenging business environment, citing high operational costs, regulatory obligations, and limited staff resources. The levy was viewed as another layer of responsibility that would require time, training, and system adjustments to manage. Online Travel Agents and Pricing Structure Discussion focused on how the levy would interact with online travel agents (OTAs) such as Booking.com. Businesses pointed out that OTA commissions already range from 15–18 %, and that applying a levy before VAT would further increase the cost to consumers while reducing profit margins for operators. Some attendees questioned whether the Council had considered these financial implications or whether national guidance would require OTAs to collect the levy directly from guests. Price Sensitivity and Domestic Market Conditions Participants agreed that the domestic visitor market remains fragile and price-sensitive. They felt that even small additional charges could discourage overnight stays or reduce length of stay. Several noted that rural areas like Crieff rely heavily on Scottish residents and short breaks, meaning there is limited capacity to absorb additional costs or pass them on to consumers. the cumulative impact of new regulations on an already pressured rural tourism sector.
Page 61
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Crieff – Key Findings (2) Policy Layering and Wider Operating Environment A recurring theme was the cumulative effect of multiple new regulations — including short-term let licensing, business rates revaluation, national insurance increases, and the Real Living Wage. Participants described a sense of “policy fatigue” within the sector. Some felt that the timing of introducing another policy measure was inappropriate, given the economic pressures on small businesses and the need to prioritise recovery and investment. Alternative Funding Ideas The session included discussion of potential alternative funding models to raise revenue for tourism infrastructure. Ideas included use of developer contributions, car-parking income, or a share of wind-farm community benefit funds. Participants felt that these could distribute costs more evenly and avoid singling out accommodation providers as collectors of a new tax. Local Infrastructure and Reinvestment Attendees highlighted a number of local priorities that could potentially benefit from visitor levy revenue, such as improvedsignage, maintenance of public toilets, and repair of roads and pavements. However, they stressed that these issues already fall under local authority responsibility and should not depend solely on a new levy. There was scepticism about whether revenues raised in Crieff would be ring-fenced for use locally rather than distributed across the wider council area. Summary The Crieff session reflected strong concerns about fairness, administrative complexity, and a lack of national consistency. Participants questioned whether the levy would deliver tangible benefits to the local area and raised broader doubts about the cumulative impact of new regulations on an already pressured rural tourism sector.
Page 62
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Kinross – Key Findings (1) Charitable and Educational Exemptions The session included representation from organisations providing educational and charitable accommodation. These stakeholders sought confirmation that such facilities—used primarily for school groups and youth activities—would be exempt from the visitor levy. They stressed that their operations differ fundamentally from commercial tourism businesses and that applying the levy would create an unfair burden on non-profit providers. The Council acknowledged these concerns and confirmed that exemptions for charities and educational organisations are permitted within the legislation and would be considered as part of scheme design. VAT Threshold and Administrative Complexity Individual self-catering operators reiterated concerns that collecting the levy would increase their turnover beyond the VAT threshold. They also highlighted the administrative complexity of adding another layer of quarterly reporting. It was noted that many small operators already face multiple compliance requirements under short-term let licensing, Making Tax Digital, and local environmental health regulations. Participants felt that these overlapping processes increase costs and reduce the time available to focus on business development. Collection and Reporting Mechanisms Participants requested clear guidance on how the levy would be collected, recorded and reported. Questions were raised about whether the Council intended to provide an online portal and what form of evidence or receipts would be required. Some operators who manage properties across different regions asked for national consistency so that a single reporting format could be used. Others wanted assurance that the process would be simple enough for small operators who manage accounts manually rather than through digital systems. Price Sensitivity and Competitive Position Attendees expressed concern that introducing a levy could disadvantage Kinross in comparison with nearby areas such as Fife or Stirling, where no scheme is currently planned. Given the proximity of these destinations, it was felt that even a small price differential could influence visitor choice. Holiday park and self-catering operators noted that many customers are families travelling on tight budgets, for whom small nightly increases could affect the affordability of stays.
Page 63
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Kinross – Key Findings (2) Use of Funds and Local Benefit Community representatives emphasised the importance of ensuring that any funds raised are reinvested locally. They felt that communities generating revenue should have a role in determining priorities for spending. Suggestions for potential uses included improvements to signage and walking routes around Loch Leven, heritage interpretation, and local marketing. Attendees supported the idea of establishing a participatory budgeting approach or community panel to advise on expenditure decisions. Governance and Enforcement Participants asked how the Council would identify and monitor all eligible accommodation providers, particularly informal or unregistered properties. Questions were raised about whether the Council’s short-term let register could be used to support compliance checks. There was also discussion about data protection and how information about visitors would be handled in line with GDPR requirements. The Council confirmed that further work would be needed to develop enforcement protocols once a decision on implementation was taken. Scope of Application Clarification was sought on whether certain types of accommodation—such as privately owned caravans, timeshares, or contractor housing—would be subject to the levy. The Council confirmed that the final scheme design would set out detailed eligibility criteria and that some categories may be excluded depending on usage and ownership models. Summary The Kinross session focused on the need for clarity and fairness in any future levy scheme. Key points included exemptions for charitable and educational organisations, the administrative burden for small operators, local reinvestment of funds, and the importance of proportionate enforcement. Participants stressed that implementation should be simple, consistent and transparent to maintain business confidence.
Page 64
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Atholl Palace Hotel – Key Findings General Position on the Visitor Levy The meeting involved representatives from two hotel businesses in Pitlochry –the Atholl Palace and the Fisher Hotel. Both expressed clear opposition to the introduction of a visitor levy within Perth & Kinross. The main reasons given were the potential negative impact on rural tourism and the belief that the measure would add cost and complexity for accommodation providers already operating in a challenging market. Economic Impact and Sector Viability Participants felt that rural areas such as Highland Perthshire would be disproportionately affected compared with large urbandestinations. They emphasised that rural hotels experience shorter seasons, lower occupancy rates and higher operational costs. It was argued that before any levy is introduced, an independent economic impact assessment should be undertaken to model potential outcomes across different types of destination. Fairness and Scope Concerns were raised about fairness and consistency. Participants questioned why accommodation providers alone would be responsible for collecting and remitting the levy, while other sectors such as attractions, retail and food service—who also benefit from tourism—would not contribute. Some viewed the measure as a “hospitality tax” rather than a genuine visitor levy, as it targeted only one element of the visitor economy. Group Bookings and Events The hotels explained that a significant proportion of their business is derived from group bookings, events and conferences. These are typically agreed on fixed budgets far in advance, making it difficult to adjust prices once contracts are in place. Participants noted that a levy could therefore reduce competitiveness for group and corporate events, as organisers might switchto destinations without a similar charge. Administration and Practical Application Attendees discussed the operational implications of applying a levy to varied booking types, including individual stays, group reservations and package deals. They highlighted potential challenges in explaining the charge to guests and ensuring transparency in pricing. There was concern that guests might interpret the levy as a hotel surcharge rather than a statutory requirement, creating reputational risk if communication was unclear. Fixed Rate versus Percentage If a levy were to be introduced, the hotels expressed a preference for a fixed nightly rate rather than a percentage of accommodation cost. A fixed rate was viewed as simpler to apply, easier for customers to understand, and more equitable across property types. Business and Contractor Stays Questions were raised about how the levy would apply to non-tourism stays such as business travel, conferences and contractor accommodation. The hotels felt that applying a “visitor” levy to such bookings would be inappropriate and could discourage repeat business from these important segments. Use of Funds and Transparency Participants stated that any revenues raised should be ring-fenced for tourism-related purposes and distributed transparently. They called for annual public reporting on levy income and expenditure, and for business representation within any forum or committee overseeing allocation of funds. It was felt that visible reinvestment—particularly in destination marketing, signage and maintenance—would be necessary to build confidence within the industry. Summary The Atholl Palace meeting reflected strong opposition to the visitor levy from rural hotel operators. Concerns focused on fairness, practical application and potential damage to competitiveness, especially in the conference and group-tour markets. Participants emphasised the need for a full economic impact assessment, clear communication with guests, and transparency in howany funds would be used.
Page 65
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Crieff Hydro Hotel – Key Findings Overview and Business Context The meeting with senior management at Crieff Hydro provided the perspective of one of Perth & Kinross’s largest independent hotels, with operations spanning both leisure and corporate tourism. The discussion focused on business sustainability, corporate events, and the implications of the visitor levy for larger hospitality employers. Third-Party Bookings and Contracted Rates The hotel raised concerns about the impact of the levy on bookings made through destination management companies (DMCs), wholesalers and international tour operators. These intermediaries typically contract room allocations many months in advance at fixed rates. It was noted that if a levy were introduced after contracts were agreed, these partners would be unable to amendpricing and would have to absorb the cost, reducing profitability Business Tourism and Conference Market Crieff Hydro highlighted the potential impact on the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE) market. The hotel relies heavily on business and event tourism, which is highly price-sensitive and planned well in advance. Participants explained that professional conference organisers operate within fixed budgets and that any increase in room cost—however small—can make a venue uncompetitive compared with alternatives in areas without a levy. There was concern that Perth & Kinross could lose conference business to other parts of Scotland or the wider UK if a levy were introduced locally. Economic Pressures and Labour Costs The hotel described the challenging cost environment facing the sector, including increased National Insurance contributions,higher energy prices, and rising wage costs linked to the Real Living Wage. These pressures have reduced operating margins and limited the ability of businesses to absorb additional charges. Managementnoted that the levy would add to a series of cumulative costs, making long-term investment and recruitment more difficult. Domestic Market Sensitivity Crieff Hydro reported that around 90% of its customers are domestic visitors, primarily families from across Scotland. Management emphasised that this market is particularly price-sensitive, with families adjusting travel plans based on even small price increases. They cautioned that the introduction of a levy could shorten stays or divert bookings to other parts of the UK where no such charge exists. The current cost-of-living pressures were identified as a key constraint on discretionary spending. Operational Implementation and Prepaid Bookings The hotel explained that most of its customers prepay accommodation in advance, raising questions about how the levy would beapplied to existing bookings. Attendees asked for clarity on whether the levy would be included in advertised prices or added as a separate line item on invoices. They stressed that clear national guidance would be needed to ensure consistency and to prevent confusion or complaints from guests. Industry Representation and STA Position Crieff Hydro confirmed its alignment with the position of the Scottish Tourism Alliance (STA), which supports a fixed-rate levy model rather than a percentage charge. The hotel also expressed interest in further engagement through industry working groups to ensure that practical issues are understood and addressed before any scheme design is finalised. Use of Funds and Accountability Participants emphasised that transparency in how revenues are spent would be essential to secure business support. They suggested that levy income should be ring-fenced for tourism-related improvements such as infrastructure, marketing and event promotion. There was agreement that visible reinvestment in the local visitor experience would help build credibility and offsetnegative perceptions of the levy. Summary The Crieff Hydro meeting highlighted the potential impact of a visitor levy on both leisure and business tourism in Perthshire. Concerns centred on price competitiveness, contractual complexity, and the overall financial pressures on large hospitality businesses. The hotel supported further engagement with the Council and the STA but maintained that careful design, national consistency and transparency would be essential for industry acceptance.
Page 66
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Royal George Hotel – Key Findings Business Context and Current Pressures The meeting with the owner of the Royal George Hotel in Perth provided insight into the operating environment for small, independently run hotels in the city. The discussion highlighted significant cost pressures, including higher staffing costs, energy prices, and taxation, all of which were impacting profitability. The hotel emphasised that margins were already tight, and that an additional financial or administrative requirement such as a visitor levy could place further strain on viability. Employment Costs and Staffing Rising wage costs and national insurance contributions were identified as major challenges for the hospitality sector. These increases had led to reductions in seasonal staffing, with potential effects on service quality and staff workload. It was felt that the introduction of another cost burden through the levy could limit the ability of small hotels to maintainlocal employment levels or invest in staff development. Capital Investment and Maintenance The hotel described recent refurbishment investments and stated that future projects might be delayed or scaled back if a levy were introduced. It was suggested that reduced cash flow resulting from lower margins would make it harder for smaller businesses to reinvest in their properties, potentially affecting the overall visitor experience and the quality of local accommodation stock. Customer Segments and Market Impact The Royal George relies on several key market segments: group travel (including coach tours), local events and weddings, and longer-stay contractors working in the area. Concerns were raised about how the levy would apply across these groups. Coach operators often work with fixed-price contracts, leaving little flexibility to absorb new charges. For weddings and local events, where many guests are Perth residents, applying a “visitor” levy was considered inappropriate. There were also questions about whether contractor accommodation—provided for workers involved in local projects—would be within scope of the scheme. Fairness and Scope of the Levy Participants questioned the fairness of applying the levy solely to accommodation providers. It was noted that other sectors that benefit from tourism, such as attractions and retail, would not be required to contribute directly. Clarification was sought on whether hotels contracted by public bodies (for example, government departments or local authorities) would be exempt. The concern was that, in such cases, the Council could effectively be paying and receiving the same funds. Transparency, Trust and Communication The owner emphasised the need for clear communication and visible accountability. There was concern that, without transparentreporting, levy revenues could be used to supplement existing budgets rather than funding new initiatives. Participants suggested that detailed annual reporting—covering total income, expenditure and supported projects—would help to build confidence among businesses. They also noted that meaningful engagement with the hospitality sector would be essential if the levy were to proceed. Competitiveness and Regional Comparison The meeting discussed the risk that Perth could lose market share to neighbouring destinations such as Dundee or Stirling if those areas did not adopt a levy. Given similar visitor offerings and short travel distances, even small price differences could influence visitor decisions. The hotel also highlighted that unregulated or informal accommodation providers may not comply withthe levy, leading to unfair competition if enforcement was inconsistent. Summary The Royal George Hotel meeting reflected the concerns of a small independent operator facing rising costs and economic uncertainty. Key themes included the financial burden of new regulation, potential effects on group and local markets, questions of fairness across sectors, and a call for transparent reinvestment of any funds collected.
Page 67
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Gleneagles Hotel – Key Findings (1) Overview and Engagement Context A meeting was held with the Head of Finance at Gleneagles Hotel to discuss the potential implications of a visitor levy for large, high-end accommodation providers. The discussion covered operational planning, VAT treatment, fairness across markets, and consistency with national policy. The session also referredto Gleneagles’ sister property in Edinburgh, which will fall under the City of Edinburgh Council’s visitor levy scheme scheduled for implementation in 2026. This provided an opportunity to compare approaches and timelines. Timescale and Implementation Process The Council explained that it was still in an early engagement phase. A draft scheme would likely go to Committee later in 2025,followed by a statutory 12-week consultation and an 18- month implementation period. The earliest realistic start date would therefore be late 2027. Gleneagles welcomed this clarity and stressed that businesses require significant lead-in time to adapt contracts, systems, and pricing. The hotel advised that at least 18 months’ notice would be necessary to update agreements with partners and ensure compliance. VAT and HMRC Treatment The hotel raised concerns about HMRC’s current position that levy revenue forms part of a business’s taxable income. It was noted that industry bodies including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) had highlighted this as a major issue, effectively creating “a tax on a tax.” Gleneagles asked whether Perth & Kinross Council, COSLA or the Scottish Government were in discussion with HMRC to seek clarification or change. The Council confirmed that national engagement was ongoing but that no change had yet been announced. Third-Party and Wholesaler Bookings Questions were raised about how the levy would be applied to bookings made through international wholesalers, online travel agents, and destination management companies. Gleneagles explained that many of these intermediaries act as the point of sale and therefore need clarity on whether they would be responsible for collecting the levy. The Council advised that this issue was being discussed at a national level and that local authorities were awaiting formal guidance. Business Delegates and Corporate Guests The hotel sought clarification on whether business delegates and conference attendees would be liable for the levy, noting that many attend events as part of corporate contracts rather than as leisure visitors. It was suggested that exemptions for corporate delegates should be considered locally if permitted underthe legislation, as this market segment represents a substantial proportion of the hotel’s business.
Page 68
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Gleneagles Hotel – Key Findings (2) Operational Complexity and System Integration Gleneagles noted that applying the levy to different booking types—including individual, group, and agency bookings—would require system adjustments and staff training. The hotel asked for national consistency to ensure that the same rules apply across all local authority areas adopting the levy. Clear guidance was requested on how to show the levy on invoices and receipts, and whether it should appear as a separate line item. Labour Market and Policy Layering The discussion also referenced wider pressures facing the hospitality sector, including recruitment challenges, business rates revaluation, and changes to tipping and employment regulations. The hotel expressed concern that cumulative policy changes, combined with the levy, could impact competitiveness and investment decisions. Shared Ownership and Long-Stay Properties The hotel sought confirmation on how the levy would apply to shared-ownership and long-stay residential units within the Gleneagles estate. The Council confirmed that owner-occupied stays would not be liable, whereas commercial letting activity would fall within scope. Transparency and Industry Collaboration Gleneagles emphasised the importance of transparent communication with visitors and of industry representation in any forum established to oversee use of funds. The hotel expressed support for continued collaboration with the Council and industry bodies such as the Scottish Tourism Alliance to ensure the levy is designed and implemented effectively. Summary The Gleneagles Hotel meeting provided detailed operational insight from a major accommodation provider. Key issues included VAT treatment, consistency across local authorities, treatment of corporate guests, and the need for a long lead-in period before any implementation. The hotel supported ongoing consultation and called for national coordination to avoid complexity for the industry and confusion for visitors.
Page 69
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Wood Leisure Holiday Parks – Key Findings Overview A meeting was held with representatives from Wood Leisure, which operates several holiday parks across Perth & Kinross and other parts of Scotland. The discussion provided the perspective of a multi-site, family-run business offering self-catering lodges, caravans, and camping facilities. Fairness and Scope of the Levy Wood Leisure expressed concern that the visitor levy would apply only to accommodation providers and not to other sectors that benefit from tourism. They argued that the measure would create an uneven playing field between different types of tourism business and between accommodation providers and day-visitor attractions. The business also noted that holiday parks contribute significantly to local economies through year-round employment and local supply chains. It was felt that these contributions were not sufficiently recognised within the consultation process. Economic Viability and Customer Impact The company highlighted the potential impact of a levy on affordability for domestic visitors and families, who form the majority of their customer base. Given rising living costs and reduced disposable income, even small price increases were seen as likely to affect demand. Management cautioned that adding a levy could make family holidays less accessible and reduce length of stay, particularly for low-income households. Seasonality and Rural Impacts Participants explained that rural holiday parks already face significant seasonality, with occupancy concentrated in the summer months. The introduction of a levy could further compress demand, leading to lower off-season utilisation and job insecurity for local staff. They also noted that rural tourism businesses tend to operate on narrow margins, meaning limited capacity to absorb new costs without passing them on to customers. Motorhome and Informal Stays A particular concern for the company was the growth of unregulated or informal motorhome and campervan parking, often on public land or roadside areas where no fees are paid. Wood Leisure argued that legitimate holiday parks could be disadvantaged if they are required to charge and administer a levy while unauthorised stays remain unmonitored. They suggested that local authorities should consider a specific levy or permit system for motorhome users, with income reinvested in infrastructure such as waste-disposal points and parking facilities. Administrative and System Requirements Questions were raised about how levy collection would work for businesses managing multiple sites across several council areas. Participants emphasised the need for a consistent national approach to avoid duplication of systems and reporting processes. They asked whether the Council planned to develop a digital portal for submission and payment, and whether data from existing booking systems could be integrated to reduce manual work. Use of Funds and Local Benefit Wood Leisure supported the principle of reinvesting any levy income in local tourism improvements but called for transparency and geographic fairness. They stressed that funds should directly benefit the communities and areas where they are generated, such as through maintenance of rural roads, waste services, and recreational infrastructure. Summary The Wood Leisure discussion reflected wider industry concerns about fairness, affordability, and enforcement. The company emphasised that the levy could disproportionately impact rural accommodation providers while leaving unregulated sectors unaffected. Consistency across council areas, transparency in use of funds, and equal treatment of all visitor segments were identified as priorities.
Page 70
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report based on Full Sample compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 1st February 2026 Kenmore & District – Key Findings Overview and Community Perspective A meeting was held with representatives of the Kenmore & District Community Council to gather views from a community perspectiveon the proposed visitor levy. The discussion focused on local impacts of tourism, priorities for potential reinvestment, and the relationship between visitor management and community wellbeing. Use of Funds and Local Benefit The Community Council emphasised that any visitor levy revenue should be reinvested directly into the areas where it is collected. Communities hosting large numbers of visitors should see tangible improvements to local services, facilities, and infrastructure. Examples of priorities included maintenance of local landscapes, management of visitor pressure on rural roads and parking and public toilet provision. Community Involvement and Decision-Making Participants supported the creation of a local mechanism for determining how levy revenues are spent. They recommended the establishment of a formal advisory group or community panel including both residents and tourism businesses. It was felt that visible community participation in spending decisions would improve accountability and public confidence in the scheme, ensuring that funds address locally identified needs rather than general council priorities. Fairness and Rural Context The Community Council noted that rural areas already contribute significantly to Perth & Kinross’s visitor economy through volunteer-led projects and community-managed facilities. Members expressed concern that smaller settlements risk being overlooked when resources are distributed on a regional basis. They also noted that much of the visitor pressure falls on small rural communities that have limited infrastructure and rely heavily on volunteers for litter collection, signage maintenance, and path upkeep. Infrastructure and Sustainability Priorities Key areas where investment was considered necessary included road maintenance, parking management, footpath repairs, and protection of the natural environment. The Community Council argued that levy funds should prioritise sustaining the quality of the local landscape, which underpins the area’s visitor appeal, rather thanfocusing solely on tourism promotion or marketing. Broader Concerns and Policy Alignment Members raised wider concerns about cumulative policy changes affecting rural communities, including planning constraints, housing pressures, and short-term let regulation. They urged that any new policy, including the visitor levy, be aligned with existing community-led tourism strategies and local development plans to ensure coherence and avoid duplication of effort. Summary The Kenmore & District Community Council discussion emphasised local accountability, fairness, and sustainability. Members supported the principle of reinvesting visitor levy income but stressed that spending must be locally controlled and focused on maintaining the natural and community assets that attract visitors. The meeting highlighted the importance of transparent decision-making, equitable distribution of funds, and integration with broader rural development policies.
Page 71
Any questions? A follow-up discussion? duncan.stewart@56degreeinsight.com | +44 (0) 771 786 8770 jim.eccleston@56degreeinsight.com | +44 (0) 744 703 1396