Agenda Document Pack - Perth and Kinross Council - 17/06/2026
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
Ambition | Compassion | Integrity Our vision is for a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality Council Building 2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH 10/06/2026 A hybrid meeting of Perth and Kinross Council will be held in the Council Chamber on Wednesday, 17 June 2026 at 10:00. If you have any queries please contact Democratic Services on (01738) 475000 or email Committee@pkc.gov.uk. THOMAS GLEN Chief Executive Those attending the meeting are requested to ensure that all notifications are silent on their device and other devices are in silent mode. Please note that the meeting will be broadcast online and recorded. The recording will be publicly available on the Council’s website following the meeting. Members: Provost X McDade Depute Provost A Parrott All Bailies All Councillors Page 1 of 350
Page 2
Page 2 of 350
Page 3
Perth and Kinross Council Wednesday, 17 June 2026 AGENDA MEMBERS ARE REMINDED OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO DECLARE ANY FINANCIAL OR NON-FINANCIAL INTEREST WHICH THEY MAY HAVE IN ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCILLORS’ CODE OF CONDUCT. 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3 MINUTE OF MEETING OF PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL OF 29 APRIL 2026 FOR APPROVAL (copy herewith) 5 - 8 4 OUTSTANDING BUSINESS STATEMENT (copy herewith 26/173) 9 - 10 5 REVIEWING OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LIBRARY SERVICES Report by Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning (copy herewith 26/174) 11 - 50 6 DRAFT VISITOR LEVY SCHEME FOR PERTH AND KINROSS FOR STATUTORY PUBLIC CONSULTATION Report by Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning (copy herewith 26/175) 51 - 250 7 SHORT-TERM LET CONTROL AREA DESIGNATION PROPOSAL Report by Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning (copy herewith 26/176) 251 - 332 8 RESPONSIBLE BUSKING CODE OF CONDUCT Report by Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning (copy herewith 26/177) 333 - 342 9 UPDATE TO SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION Report by Strategic Lead - Legal and Governance (copy herewith 26/178) 343 - 346 10 UPDATE TO STANDING ORDERS Report by Strategic Lead - Legal and Governance (copy herewith 26/179) 347 - 350 11 APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES/ OUTSIDE BODIES Council is asked to: Page 3 of 350
Page 4
(i) note the resignation of Councillor Dave Cuthbert as both Convener and member of Tayside Contracts Joint Committee (ii) appoint a member to the vacancy on Tayside Contracts Joint Committee (iii) appoint a member to the role of Convener of Tayside Contracts Joint Committee 12 ELECTED MEMBERS BRIEFING NOTES Council is asked to note the following Elected Members Briefing Notes that have been issued to elected Members since the previous Council meeting: 20 April Community Insurance Policies 23 April South Kinross Flood Protection Scheme - Local Authority Hearing Outcome 27 April Local Development Plan 3 emerging spatial strategy 28 April Draft Visitor Levy Scheme development interim update 28 April Great Town, Small City finalist 01 May Protests over accommodation for people seeking asylum 08 May Blairgowrie protest update 13 May Verge Cutting update, May 2026 14 May Street weed control update 20 April Affordable Housing 22 May Falkland House School 27 May Council Tax charges for long-term empty buildings 28 May Flood Resilience Grant Scheme 3 June World Cup 2026 Fund 4 June Community Support and Enforcement Team and Visitor Management - our offer to communities 5 June Protest over accommodation for people seeking asylum. 9 June New Health and Social Care Partnership Chief Officer 9 June Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) - National Benchmarking Report 2024/2025 9 June Protest Over Belfast Incident Page 4 of 350
Page 5
Perth and Kinross Council Minute of hybrid meeting of Perth and Kinross Council held in the Council Chamber, 2 High Street, Perth on Wednesday 29 April 2026 at 10.00am. Present: Provost X McDade, Depute Provost A Parrott, Bailies C Ahern, A Bailey and C McLaren; Councillors K Allan, H Anderson, L Barrett, P Barrett, B Brawn, S Carr, A Chan, D Cuthbert, S Donaldson, E Drysdale, J Duff, A Forbes, M Frampton, N Freshwater, K Harvey, D Illingworth, I James, N Khogali, G Laing, I MacPherson, C Mair, I Massie, S McCole, T McEwan, J Rebbeck, W Robertson, C Shiers, F Smith, C Stewart, G Stewart, A Watt, R Watters and J Welch. In Attendance: T Glen, Chief Executive; C Mailer, Depute Chief Executive; L Simpson, Strategic Lead - Legal and Governance; S Merone, Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning; E Ritchie, Strategic Lead – Housing and Communities; N Sworowski, B Murray and J Ross (all Economy, Development and Planning); S Hendry, A Brown and M Pasternak (all Legal and Governance). Apologies: Bailies R Brock and M Williamson. Provost X McDade, Presiding 1. Welcome and Apologies Provost McDade welcomed all those present to the meeting and apologies were noted as above. The Provost and elected members congratulated St. Johnstone men’s football team on their recent success in winning the Scottish Championship title. 2. Declarations of Interest There were no Declarations of Interest in terms of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. 3. Minutes 3(i) Minute of Meeting of Perth and Kinross Council of 25 February 2026 for Approval The minute of the meeting of Perth and Kinross Council of 25 February 2026 was submitted and approved as a correct record. 3 Page 5 of 350
Page 6
3(ii) Minute of Special Meeting of Perth and Kinross Council of 4 March 2026 for Approval The minute of the special meeting of Perth and Kinross Council of 4 March 2026 was submitted and approved as a correct record. 4. Outstanding Business Statement The Outstanding Business Statement was noted, and it was agreed to remove the completed actions. 5. LDP3 Development Plan Scheme There was submitted a report by Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning (26/115) seeking approval for the updated statutory Development Plan Scheme (DPS) for the preparation of the next Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan (LDP3). Resolved: (i) The updated Perth & Kinross Council Development Plan Scheme be approved; (ii) The Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning be authorised to submit the Scheme to the Scottish Ministers. 6. Mid-Market Rent Proposals There was submitted a joint report by Strategic Lead –Housing and Communities and Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning (26/116) seeking (1) approval to establish a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) to enable the Council to directly deliver affordable housing through a Mid-Market Rent model, and (2) approval to borrow £1.38 million from the General Fund and on-lend this to the LLP to support the acquisition of an initial tranche of 13 new-build affordable homes at Westfields, Rattray. Resolved: (i) The decision by the Housing and Social Wellbeing Committee to endorse Option 3 to establish a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) which will enable the Council to directly deliver Mid-Market Rent be noted; (ii) The establishment of a LLP for the delivery of a Mid-Market Rent model be approved; (iii) The Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning, in consultation with Strategic Lead - Legal and Governance, be authorised to identify and appoint the LLP’s second member; (iv) The Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning be authorised to borrow £1.38m from the general fund and lend this to the LLP to acquire 13 Page 6 of 350
Page 7
new build affordable homes at Westfields, Rattray, subject to satisfactory due diligence and acceptable security arrangements. 7. Proposal to Grant Freedom of Perth to Citizens of Aschaffenburg, Germany Resolved: The decision of the Civic Affairs Sub-Committee of 20 April 2026 to grant the Freedom of the City of Perth to the Citizens of Aschaffenburg be endorsed. 8. Elected Members Briefing Notes The Elected Members Briefing Notes, issued since the previous ordinary Council meeting and as set out on the agenda, be noted. 9. Special Meeting of Perth and Kinross Council – 19 August 2026 It was agreed that a special meeting of Perth and Kinross Council would be held on 19 August 2026 at 10.00am. Page 7 of 350
Page 8
Page 8 of 350
Page 9
PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL OUTSTANDING BUSINESS STATEMENT (OBS) (Report No. 26/173) Please note that this statement sets out outstanding decisions of Council / this committee / sub-committee along with an update and estimated completion date. Actions which are overdue are shaded for ease of reference. Where an update reflects that an action is complete then agreement will be sought to its removal from the OBS. No Date / Minute Reference / Report Number Subject Title Outstanding Action Update Lead Officer /Service Action Due/ completed Action Expected 1. 14 January 2026. Item 4. Motion – Buskers Code of Conduct Officers to prepare a Buskers Code of Conduct for Perth City Centre and to bring a draft code of conduct for approval by Council for consultation with businesses and residents. Working group with key stakeholders established and consultation undertaken. Report submitted to Council on 17 June 2026. Strategic Lead – Housing and Communities COMPLETE. June 2026 5. 25 February 2026. Item 4(i) Motion Regarding Visitor Levy Scheme. Elected Member briefing note to be circulated to all members in April 2026 with the latest detail on the position prior to a report submitted to Council in June 2026. Elected Member briefing note circulated 28 April 2026. Elected Member briefing session held on 11 May 2026. Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning. COMPLETE April / May 2026 4 Page 9 of 350
Page 10
Page 10 of 350
Page 11
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Perth and Kinross Council Date of Meeting: 17 June 2026 Report Title: Reviewing Options for the Future of Library Services Report Number: 26/174 Report Author: Steven MacDonald, Economic Development Manager (Skills, Business, Place and Investment) Organisation Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead, Economy, Development and Planning ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to set out options and recommendations for the future sustainable delivery of library services as requested by the Council on 26 February 2025. 1.2 The report sets out: • The context underpinning current library service provision and existing funding arrangements. • The key strategic, statutory, financial, and operational considerations. • A range of delivery options, together with an appraisal of each, to reflect the significant financial challenges facing Culture Perth and Kinross. • The identification of a recommended option for Members consideration. 1.3 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Context 4. Main Issues 5. Proposals 6. Conclusion 7. Impact Value Assessment 8. Appendices 5 Page 11 of 350
Page 12
2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Council: 2.1 Consider and comment on the contents of the report. 2.2 Approve Option 2 ‘Community Services Hub Model’, as the preferred option, providing a clear strategic direction for the future of library services, with continued investment in this statutory provision through a recurring amount of approximately £375,000 from 1 April 2027, in addition to annual pay awards and inflationary uplifts. 2.3 Agree that the financial implications of this proposal are factored into the budget assumptions for 2027/28 and included in the final revenue budget that will be considered by Council in February 2027. 3. Background/Context 3.1 Library services are a statutory function of the Council, delivered on its behalf by Culture Perth and Kinross. The Scottish Library and Information Council (SLIC) defines an “adequate” library service through four interlinked core components: • Reading and Literacy: Promoting literacy, enjoyment of reading and learning. • Information and Digital Access: Helping people access information and improve digital skills. • Health and Wellbeing: Providing access to health-related information, supportive programmes, connections to services, and space for personal wellbeing. • Culture and Creativity: Supporting community cultural engagement, creativity, heritage celebration and local identity. 3.2 Libraries play a vital role in delivering Perth & Kinross Council’s priorities - including Tackling Poverty, Community Engagement, Economic Development, People and Culture by: • Supporting learning, attainment and lifelong skills, enabling 30,000 – 40,000 annual school class visits and helping children, young people and adults to achieve their potential. • Enhancing health and wellbeing, providing welcoming, accessible community spaces and services that support prevention, early intervention and social connection. Page 12 of 350
Page 13
• Driving inclusion, tackling poverty and digital exclusion through free access to technology, information and support, ensuring all residents can participate fully in community life and the local economy. 3.3 The agreed annual Service Level Agreement award to Culture Perth and Kinross are £3,250,116. Library frontline service costs are £1,239,663, with a further £230,939 relating to buildings costs met directly by the Council (See Appendix 1). There are also additional costs relating to support services, digital services and central services. In February 2025, the Council approved additional non-recurring funding of £500,000 per annum for Culture Perth and Kinross for 2025/26 and 2026/27. This was to provide short-term financial stability to Culture Perth and Kinross and maintain library provision while new collaborative approaches for the delivery of library services with communities were developed – to be reported back to the Council. In March 2026, a further £200,000 of non-recurring funding for 2026/27 was provided to address an emerging budget shortfall in 2026/27. The total award to Culture Perth and Kinross for 2026/27 is £3,950,116, which, all things being equal, will reduce by the £700,000 identified above. This will create a budget shortfall for 2027/28 which will have to be addressed by Culture Perth and Kinross and considered by the Council as part of the budget review process. 3.4 National evidence highlights the strong return on investment that libraries deliver. Research by the British Library identifies a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of £6.95 for every £1 invested, demonstrating clear value to the public purse. 3.5 Locally, Culture Perth and Kinross commissioned a socio-economic impact assessment, which reinforced this position. The study found that for every £1 invested in community libraries, there is a return of £9.76, underlining the significant economic, social and cultural value that libraries contribute across Perth and Kinross. The benefit cost ratio or BCR is a relative measure of socio-economic performance that compares the total net additional benefits generated by CPK assets to the total net additional costs incurred by these assets. This includes economic impact generated by on-site staffing, visitor economy impacts, the welfare value generated through cultural, learning or social activities and commercial income. 3.6 Perth and Kinross has a strong history of library innovation. It is home to the oldest public lending library in Scotland, Innerpeffray Library, which was established in 1680, and Perth and Kinross Libraries operated the first Mobile Library service in the 1920’s. The AK Bell Library was the first in Scotland to offer a full, free to access computer service which was later established across Scotland as the People’s Network. 3.7 Libraries are much more than places to borrow books—they are essential community assets that support lifelong learning, provide visitor information, celebrate local heritage and contribute to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of Perth and Kinross. They strengthen communities by: • Promoting literacy and digital inclusion, helping residents develop vital skills for life and work. Page 13 of 350
Page 14
• Providing free access to digital services, including the internet, computers and research resources. • Supporting access to public services, assisting people to engage with online systems and information. • Offering safe, welcoming and warm spaces, open and accessible to everyone. • Reducing social isolation, particularly for older people, including delivering services to those who are housebound. • Fostering community connection, bringing together people from different backgrounds and generations. • Enriching cultural life, through events, activities and celebration of local heritage. They preserve local history, archives and cultural records, creating a sense of identity and pride in local heritage, as well as supporting Perth and Kinross tourism ambitions. • Contributing to economic development, supporting employability, enterprise and flexible working through access to space and resources. 3.8 They also positively impact on our local economy by acting as information centres for tourists, showcasing the unique history, heritage and attractions in our city, towns and villages. 3.9 To illustrate the wider role that libraries can play and thanks to private investment, Culture Perth and Kinross has been able to recruit and employ a Sustainability Officer for a period of 5 years. The focus of this role is to develop and deliver a high-quality and sustainable programme of public events and engagement initiatives that support the positive promotion of climate change and sustainable living. Projects supported and delivered to date include: • Lend and Mend classes are ongoing and are supported by a team of volunteers. Members of the Lend and Mend community are learning new skills and improving their sewing in an easy-going, social environment. 439 people accessed the volunteer led sessions at the Lend and Mend Hub in 2025/26 and there are currently 214 members. Events include Mend in Public Day with Social Flock, a local charity which provides clothing to vulnerable families. At the event more than 20 items of donated clothing were repaired by participants to ensure their reuse. • A further engagement project has been the Perth Prison Library, partnering with NHS Tayside's Prison Psychological Therapies Service to support client rehabilitation in HMP Perth. Page 14 of 350
Page 15
• The CPK Youth Collective Fashion Show (‘A Century of Youth – 100 Years of Youth Fashion’) was a Scottish Student Led Event of the Year Winner (Scottish Events Awards). The aim of the project was to co- produce a youth-led fashion show exploring 100 years of youth fashion, using clothing, upcycling, film, and performance to reflect social change, identity, and self-expression, and with a strong emphasis on the circular economy in this time of climate crisis. • The Seed Library is a partnership with Perthshire Organic Gardeners. Members receive 5 packets of seeds per year and access to a newsletter and many events, such as fermenting vegetables, seed swaps and Tomato Day. In 2025, 125 people attended Seed Library events and there are 113 active borrowers. 3.10 2026 is the UK National Year of Reading, placing libraries at the centre of national wellbeing and educational initiatives. 3.11 Culture Perth and Kinross have set several priorities for 2026/27. • Delivery of 2 new Mobile Library Vehicles to replace ageing infrastructure. This has been made possible due to a generous legacy donation. • Seek to secure funding to deliver improved digital and information literacy services within all libraries. • Youth Collective work, focussing on libraries with funding from the Young Start programme. • Participation in the NHS Pilot programme at Breadalbane Library: “Opposite Ends of the Tay”. This programme will develop a growing collaboration between NHS Tayside and public libraries to strengthen information literacy and support preventative, person-centred healthcare. There is potential to roll this out across Perth and Kinross. • Continued reader development programming including participation in Book Bug, Book Week Scotland and Summer Reading Challenge. Current Service Provision 3.12 The Library Service currently comprises: • 12 physical libraries • 2 mobile libraries • Digital lending services (eBooks, eAudiobooks, eNewspapers and eMagazines) 3.13 A full breakdown of library service running costs, total annual visits, cost per visit, total active borrowers, cost per borrower, staff numbers and opening hours per library is attached as Appendix 1. Page 15 of 350
Page 16
3.14 Library performance remains strong: • Customer satisfaction exceeds 95%. • There has been an average year on year increase in footfall over the last 4 years, including a 20% increase from 389,670 in 2022/23 to 470,094 in 2025/26. • Approximately 12% of residents are active users. • Local Government Benchmarking Framework indicates that, in 2024/25, cost per library visit in Perth and Kinross was lower than Scotland, and the benchmarking family group. 3.15 Libraries previously identified as at risk of closure have seen an average 7.5% increase in footfall during the first half of 2025/26. 4. Main Issues 4.1 Despite strong performance against agreed Key Performance Indicators, the service is facing increasing structural challenges. Rising staffing and operating costs, reduced Council funding and changing patterns in how people access and use library services mean that the current delivery model is no longer financially sustainable. 4.2 As a statutory service, opportunities to secure external funding to support core provision are limited, with most funding streams restricted to time-limited projects rather than ongoing delivery. Consequently, it is necessary to consider alternative models for the future delivery of services to ensure they remain sustainable, relevant and aligned with Council priorities. 4.3 There are 54 (33.73 FTE) staff employed in the direct delivery of library services within Culture Perth and Kinross and a further 10 staff (3FTE) who support broader functions across the organisation such as marketing, finance, operations and HR. 4.4 Since April 2016, the Library Service has delivered significant efficiencies, with staffing levels reduced by 45% (from 60.8 FTE to 33.73 FTE). Over the same period, funding has declined by more than 38% in real terms, driving substantial changes in service delivery to maintain provision. 4.5 For comparison, Stirling, with a smaller population, employs 46 FTE, while comparable authorities such as Falkirk and Dundee operate with 48 FTE and 68 FTE respectively. 4.6 Recurring spend on materials in libraries, including book funds, events and reader development activities such as summer reading challenge, is also low in comparison to other areas. In 2024/25, Perth and Kinross spent £0.92 per 1,000 population. This compares to Stirling (£2.41), Falkirk (£1.33), Highland £1.39) and Dundee (£2.14). This demonstrates that Perth and Kinross Libraries operate as one of the most efficient services in Scotland. Page 16 of 350
Page 17
4.7 Further significant savings cannot be achieved without: • Material changes to service delivery, or • Reductions to current provision 4.8 As previously mentioned, the Council approved additional non-recurring funding of £500,000 per annum for Culture Perth and Kinross for 2025/26 and 2026/27. A further £200,000 was provided in March 2026 for 2026/27. This was for the whole of Culture Perth and Kinross activity. 4.9 Since then, work has focused on: • Establishing community-based working groups. • Developing shared action plans for community libraries. • Increasing community participation in the development and delivery of library services. • Identifying more efficient ways of delivering services. 4.10 As part of our work with communities, we established 5 community action planning groups in Alyth, Auchterarder, Birnam, Comrie and Scone Libraries. With the support of an external facilitator, library staff and communities discussed issues raised through the campaigns to retain library provision. 4.11 Each of the groups co-created an action plan which reflected shared priorities for the local community and library service and identified actions which would provide a greater level of ongoing engagement. In some areas the communities have formed ‘Friends Of’ groups which will undertake additional activity beyond the action plan, and in other areas there are representatives from the local Community Council, Development Trust, and other community organisations. Minutes of meetings and plans are shared with all library users, and participation is open to everyone who wants to get involved. 4.12 Examples of activity include: • The Friends of Auchterarder group discussed having an area in the library that would allow older residents to meet weekly to share conversation and company, whilst promoting the services and resources available at the library. This was an instant success and has helped reduce loneliness and the isolation of individuals participating. Through “Warm Space” funding, they are also able to supply tea, coffee, soup and biscuits, extending the impact of the sessions. • In Scone, the community worked with staff to deliver a fundraising open day/coffee morning with stalls and activities. This raised £708.90 and the community and staff will plan together how the money will be spent to make improvements to the library. The community have also been involved in reshaping the layout of the library to allow for a “Lend & Mend” and Craft Hub. Classes started in May 2026 with 2 volunteers recruited to lead sessions. Page 17 of 350
Page 18
• Birnam Library held a book launch by the local author Fiona Valpy. This was a sell out and all proceeds were donated to the library to help buy new lighting. The local Men’s Shed also built a book return box for use out of hours. • Comrie Library are successfully using the existing library building for other meetings out of hours. They also held a successful "Love Your Library Day" promotion day on 25 April 2026. • Alyth Library held a coffee morning in a local hall and raised £1,148. The group and staff will decide how this is spent. New signage was also designed and installed in discussion with the group. 4.13 Although engagement highlighted opportunities for local communities to add value to the core library services, feedback indicated that there was limited willingness within communities to take on responsibility for delivering the core service itself. 5. Proposals 5.1 This section sets out a clear description of each option for the future delivery of Library Services. Full details of each option, including savings, staffing reductions, costs, risks and benefits as well as appraisal methodology and the appraisal itself are included in Appendix 2. A summary is provided below. Option 1 – Do Nothing (Maintain Current Provision) 5.2 This option retains the current model and level of library service provision, including all existing library buildings, opening hours and staffing arrangements. It assumes continued delivery through Culture Perth and Kinross at existing service levels. 5.3 This option would require recurring additional funding of approximately £375,000 beyond 2026/27 in addition to inflationary and pay award increases and does not address longer-term affordability or estate pressures. Option 2 - Community Services Hub Model 5.4 This option proposes continued investment in library services by repositioning libraries as multipurpose Community Services Hubs, dovetailing with existing and planned place-based approaches and service delivery. Libraries will remain a core statutory service while expanding their role to integrate wellbeing, learning, culture, tourism and community activity, ensuring that existing provision is maintained, whilst making improved use of buildings and shared services. 5.5 The model includes: • Differentiated approaches for city, town and rural libraries. • Rebalancing of resources across the library service network. Page 18 of 350
Page 19
• Strong partnership delivery with health, third sector, cultural and tourism partners. • Opportunities for external funding and income generation. • The approach focuses on medium-term sustainability without library closures. 5.6 This option would require recurring additional funding of approximately £375,000 beyond 2026/27 in addition to inflationary and pay award increases, whilst also looking at improved collaboration and review of the use of our estate with key partners. Option 3 – Integrate Public and School Library Provision 5.7 This option involves relocating public library provision into schools, reducing the number of standalone library buildings. The option applies primarily to Alyth, Comrie, Pitlochry, Blairgowrie, Scone and Auchterarder. 5.8 While staffing would still be required, the model assumes potential future estate efficiencies. However, it would require capital investment to adapt buildings for potential shared use, offers limited short-term savings, and is only viable in a small number of locations. Option 4 – Transfer Library Services back to under the direct control of the Council 5.9 Under this option, all library services would transfer from Culture Perth and Kinross to direct delivery by Perth and Kinross Council. 5.10 This would result in the loss of non-domestic rates relief (£400,000 per annum - £221,000 for 4 Campus Libraries alone) i.e. additional property costs, and the need to absorb service management and specialist capacity within Perth and Kinross Council structures. This would also result in Culture Perth and Kinross focusing its remit on the operation of the Museum and Art Gallery. Option 5 – Reduce Opening Hours 5.11 This option reduces library opening hours at selected libraries by the equivalent of one day per week, without closing any buildings. 5.12 The option maintains geographic coverage but reduces access, particularly for school and community users, and involves one-off redundancy and pension costs. 5.13 This option could provide recurring savings of £195,295. Option 6 – Reduce Opening Hours and Consolidate Perth City Library Services 5.14 This option builds on Option 5 by additionally closing the North Inch Public Library service, retaining only a reduced school service on the site. Page 19 of 350
Page 20
5.15 Whilst generating additional savings, this option disproportionately affects an area of higher social need and reduces access to library services in Perth. 5.16 This option could provide recurring savings of £218,559. Option 7 – Retain Five Hub Libraries and Close All Remaining Libraries 5.17 This option concentrates provision into 5 hub libraries and closes all other community libraries, including Scone, Auchterarder, Comrie, Birnam, Pitlochry, Alyth and North Inch. 5.18 Although it generates greater revenue savings and reduces the Council estate, it significantly reduces access to library services and was previously rejected by Council following strong community opposition. 5.19 This option could provide recurring savings of £317,200, however, does potentially transfer the NDR costs on vacant buildings to the Council. Option 8 – Retain Five Hub Libraries on Reduced Opening Hours and Close All Remaining Libraries 5.20 This option combines closure of all non-hub libraries with reduced opening hours at the remaining five hub libraries. 5.21 While it achieves the highest level of revenue savings, it also presents the greatest risk to statutory adequacy, equality of access, and exposure to legal and reputational challenge. 5.22 This option could provide recurring savings of £466,901, but again may lead to the Council incurring NDR costs on vacant buildings. Option appraisal 5.23 The options have been assessed against the following weighted criteria: • Statutory compliance (25%) • Financial sustainability (25%) • Community impact and equality of access (20%) • Deliverability and risk (15%) • Strategic alignment and long-term value (15%) Page 20 of 350
Page 21
Options Weighted Score (out of 5) Option 1 Do Nothing 3.40 Option 2 Community Services Hub Model 4.35 Option 3 Integrate Public and School Library Provision 2.85 Option 4 Transfer Library Services to Direct Perth and Kinross Council Control 2.45 Option 5 Reduce Opening Hours 3.00 Option 6 Reduce Opening Hours and Consolidate Perth City Library Services 2.55 Option 7 Retain 5 Hub Libraries and Close All Remaining Libraries 2.35 Option 8 Retain 5 Libraries on Reduced Opening Hours 2.10 5.24 The weighted option appraisal indicates that Option 2 achieves the strongest overall balance across statutory compliance, financial sustainability, community impact and long-term strategic value. It is therefore recommended as the preferred option. 5.25 While requiring continued investment, this option: • Maintains an adequate statutory service, avoiding the legal and reputational risks associated with service reduction, while adapting to changing community needs. • Supports prevention and place-based delivery by sustaining access across Perth city, towns and rural communities. • Aligns strongly with Council priorities on prevention, wellbeing, inclusive growth and community resilience. • Promotes health and wellbeing, including the provision of warm, welcoming spaces, preventative support, digital inclusion and clear signposting to services. • Supports culture, creativity and heritage, strengthening local identity and participation. • Contributes to tourism and place promotion by showcasing the distinct offer of Perth and Kinross. • Enables learning, skills development and employability, supporting people at all stages of life. • Encourages community involvement and civic participation, creating inclusive opportunities for connection and local engagement. Page 21 of 350
Page 22
• Responds directly to community feedback, which favours improvement of services rather than reduction. 5.26 This option proposes a sustainable and forward-looking model for library services underpinned by continued investment, providing the strongest platform for long-term transformation. Libraries would increasingly operate as integrated Community Service Hubs, working alongside wellbeing, cultural, tourism and community services and wider placed based activity and service delivery by Council services and partners. Delivery will remain through Culture Perth and Kinross, supported by a strengthened commissioning and oversight role from the Council. Delivery would be tailored to reflect the differing needs, roles and scale of Perth city, towns and rural communities, with expanded partnership working across the Health and Social Care Partnership, NHS, third sector, cultural organisations and tourism partners. This will support place-based approaches to service delivery, with a stronger, targeted focus on areas of greatest need. 5.27 This option would require a commitment to ongoing funding beyond the current period (from 1 April 2027), including a recurring investment of approximately £375,000, in addition to annual pay awards and inflationary uplifts. As stated above, this will not address the financial challenges facing Culture Perth and Kinross going forward, and the Council may have to consider further options in setting the final 2027/28 revenue budget. 5.28 Analysis of frontline service costs (Appendix 1) highlights significant variation in cost per visit and cost per borrower across the library network. While the overall service delivers good value at scale, with an average cost per visit of approximately £3.93 across more than 470,000 annual visits, individual sites range from lower-cost, high-demand libraries to smaller or rural facilities with higher unit costs. 5.29 This variation reflects the differing roles that libraries play across Perth and Kinross, including city and town centre provision, rural access, and mobile services. It reinforces the need for a more differentiated and place-based approach, rather than a uniform model of service delivery. Option 2 directly responds to this by recognising that libraries serve distinct functions within their communities and should be resourced and configured accordingly. 5.30 Under the Community Services Hub Model, these insights will inform a more effective alignment of resources, activity and partnership delivery across the network. Provision will be strengthened in higher-demand locations, while access in smaller or more rural communities will be maintained through more flexible and collaborative approaches. This ensures that investment is targeted to areas of greatest need and impact, while retaining a comprehensive service. 5.31 Whilst this option represents a continued funding commitment, it should be considered in the context of the medium to long-term financial position. The current model is not sustainable without ongoing support, and a ‘do nothing’ approach would require a similar level of funding without delivering service Page 22 of 350
Page 23
transformation or improved efficiency. Option 2 provides a structured pathway to stabilise the service and transition towards a more sustainable, place-based model. Over time, this approach is expected to moderate cost pressures through improved productivity, partnership delivery and opportunities for external funding, while also supporting greater integration with the Council’s estate strategy and creating the conditions for future optimisation. 5.32 This approach focuses on improving the overall value and impact of the service, rather than solely reducing costs. By aligning resources more closely with demand and need, Option 2 strengthens the effectiveness of existing investment, supports increased participation, and maximises social, economic and community outcomes across Perth and Kinross. 5.33 Option 2 also improves the overall resilience of Culture Perth and Kinross by moving the service away from a fixed delivery model towards a more flexible, partnership-based and demand-led approach. Compared to the current model, which remains financially and operationally constrained, this approach enhances the organisation’s ability to respond to future pressures, improves the efficiency of resource use, and diversifies delivery and funding mechanisms. While it does not eliminate the requirement for continued investment, it provides a clear and credible pathway to stabilising the organisation and supporting its long-term sustainability. 5.34 The Council has already established a clear precedent for a place-based, hub-led approach to service delivery through the Pitlochry Locality Asset Review, approved by the Finance and Resources Committee on 12 June 2024 (Report No. 24/186). This report endorsed a community campus model, centred on the co-location of library, leisure, and council services within a consolidated facility, alongside the rationalisation and repurposing of underutilised assets. The approach was developed through extensive community engagement and aligns with the Council’s Corporate Asset Management Framework, demonstrating how integrated service delivery can improve accessibility, reduce estate costs, and support wider outcomes including housing, community wellbeing and economic sustainability. Pitlochry therefore provides a live Council’s example of place-based asset consolidation and service integration, directly supporting the proposed Community Services Hub Model and offering a practical pathway for implementation across the wider library network. It demonstrates how libraries can form part of a multi-service community anchor. 5.35 There is also growing body of evidence across Scotland and the UK demonstrating the effectiveness of libraries operating as integrated Community Service Hubs. In Scotland, examples include the co-location of library services within Health and Social Care Partnership facilities in Glasgow (Parkhead Hub), and the use of libraries as access points for NHS ‘Near Me’ digital consultations across multiple local authorities. Wider UK examples, such as the integrated library hub model in Kirklees and community hubs in Medway and Norfolk, demonstrate how libraries can successfully combine access to council services, wellbeing support, learning, and community activity within a single, accessible location. Page 23 of 350
Page 24
These models have been shown to increase footfall, improve access to services, and support prevention and early intervention agendas. They provide a strong evidence base for the proposed Community Services Hub Model. Appendix 3 provides further information on Benchmarking Case studies. 5.36 As highlighted in the Benchmarking Case Studies, implementation of Option 2 introduces a number of key risks; however, these can be managed and mitigated through the measures set out in the table below: Risks Mitigations Ongoing funding requirement Medium-term financial planning and efficiency programme Reliance on partnerships Formal agreements and diversified funding sources Delivery complexity Phased implementation and strengthened governance Benefits realised over time Clear milestones and performance monitoring framework 5.37 Subject to approval of Option 2, a phased implementation programme will be undertaken to transition to a Community Services Hub model, ensuring continuity of statutory provision throughout. The approach will be structured around four stages: • Mobilisation and Design: Establish programme governance, confirm the service model, develop the financial framework, and align the estate strategy to support hub delivery. • Detailed Design and Pilot Preparation: Identify pilot locations, formalise partnership arrangements, redesign service delivery, and update governance and performance frameworks. • Pilot Implementation: Launch one or two pilot hubs, introducing co- located services and enhanced programming, supported by workforce transition and performance monitoring. • Evaluation and Rollout Planning: Evaluate pilot performance, refine the model, and agree a phased rollout plan across the wider library network. 5.38 The Pitlochry Locality Asset Project and Benchmarking case Studies (Appendix 3) will inform this approach which will enable the Council to move at pace while managing risk, providing a clear pathway from approval to tested delivery and scalable implementation. 5.39 Governance will be provided through a Programme Board, with regular reporting to senior officers and elected members. The board will be supported by an Officer Working Group and will liaise with the Strategic Alliance Group set-up between the Council and the three ALEOs (Culture Perth and Kinross, Live Active Leisure and Perth Theatre and Concert Hall) to identify possible synergies and common solutions. Page 24 of 350
Page 25
6. Conclusion 6.1 The current model for library service delivery is no longer financially sustainable without continued investment, and further efficiencies cannot be achieved without materially impacting provision. As a statutory service with clear social, economic and wellbeing benefits, any reduction in access would carry significant legal, reputational and community risks. 6.2 The appraisal of options demonstrates that Option 2 – the Community Services Hub Model – offers the most balanced and sustainable approach, maintaining statutory compliance while enabling transformation and alignment with Council priorities. It provides a credible pathway to modernise delivery, maximise partnership working and respond to evolving community needs. 6.3 Subject to continued investment, this option would protect core provision while enabling libraries to play an enhanced role in prevention, wellbeing, inclusion and place-based service delivery. It therefore represents the strongest platform for transformation ensuring the long-term resilience, relevance and impact of library services across Perth and Kinross. 6.4 Members are therefore asked to consider whether the long-term benefits of service stability, transformation and resilience justify the continued level of investment required. 7. Impact Value Assessment https://www.pkc.gov.uk/article/24316/Impact-and-Value-Assessments. 8. Appendices 8.1 Appendix 1 Library Service Running Costs and other information 8.2 Appendix 2 Options Appraisal 8.3 Appendix 3 Benchmarking Case Studies Page 25 of 350
Page 26
Page 26 of 350
Page 27
PKC - GENERAL# Library Service Running Costs and other information Library Frontline Service Costs AK Bell Alyth Auchterarder Birnam Blairgowrie Breadalbane Comrie Loch Leven North Inch Pitlochry Scone Strathearn Mobile 1 Mobile 2 Staffing Costs 309,043.83 20,310.39 44,533.78 12,341.89 50,181.12 82,696.70 14,618.18 134,689.35 91,014.18 20,310.39 44,924.89 115,363.70 40,232.14 40,232.14 1,020,492.67£ Holiday cover - 2,343.82 5,139.20 1,424.25 - - 1,686.94 - - 2,343.82 5,184.33 - - - 18,122.36£ Equipment 2,000.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 100.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 150.00 150.00 1,000.00 100.00 100.00 7,950.00£ Cleaning materials 2,000.00 50.00 100.00 50.00 750.00 750.00 50.00 750.00 750.00 100.00 100.00 750.00 50.00 50.00 6,300.00£ Rent - - - 8,815.00 - - - - - - - - - - 8,815.00£ Book Stock 14,539.61 1,029.03 3,002.29 839.82 2,757.79 6,920.83 729.51 11,129.28 8,919.89 1,035.89 2,257.96 8,533.11 1,542.86 1,262.14 64,500.00£ Insurance - Contents 22,193.36 415.77 1,623.93 397.30 1,564.19 2,051.95 401.71 2,819.29 2,059.59 410.91 1,611.48 2,797.28 - - 38,346.76£ Lease, maintenance & fuel - - - - - - - - - - - - 37,568.00 37,568.00 75,136.00£ CPK TOTAL 349,776.80 24,249.01 54,549.20 23,968.27 56,253.11 93,419.47 17,586.34 150,387.92 103,743.66 24,351.01 54,228.67 128,444.09 79,492.99 79,212.27 1,239,662.79£ Building costs incurred by PKC 175,377.00 5,398.00 9,292.00 6,120.00 18,861.53 Not available 4,499.00 Not available Not available 2,239.15 9,153.00 Not available PKC TOTAL 175,377.00 5,398.00 9,292.00 6,120.00 18,861.53 - 4,499.00 - - 2,239.15 9,153.00 - - - 230,939.68£ TOTAL RUNNING COSTS 525,153.80 29,647.01 63,841.20 30,088.27 75,114.64 93,419.47 22,085.34 150,387.92 103,743.66 26,590.15 63,381.67 128,444.09 79,492.99 79,212.27 1,470,602.46£ Frontline Service Costs Total Annual Visits (25/26) 105,971 7,500 21,882 6,121 20,100 50,442 5,317 81,115 65,012 7,550 16,457 62,193 11,245 9,199 470,104 Cost Per Visit 4.96 3.95 2.92 4.92 3.74 1.85 4.15 1.85 1.60 3.52 3.85 2.07 7.07 8.61 3.93 Total Active Borrowers (12mths to 13/1/26) 7543 268 698 172 762 649 213 1588 926 198 691 1459 380 400 15947 Cost per Borrower 69.62 110.62 91.46 174.93 98.58 143.94 103.69 94.70 112.03 134.29 91.72 88.04 209.19 198.03 122.92 Additional Costs Support Services: This includes the costs of Book processing, cataloguing, branch exchange, Early Years and Book Bug provision, Prison services, events and reader development. Digital Services: This includes the cost of Library Management Systems, support staff, Netloan, Online Catalogue, Ebooks and Eaudio etc. Central Services: Costs for HR, Payroll, Finance, Marketing, Events, Admin and other organisational overheads. These are shared with Perth Museum and Perth Art Gallery. AK Bell Library Open 39.5 hours per week (Tuesday – Saturday). 15 members of staff (7.36 Full Time Equivalent – FTE). Alyth Open 15 hours per week (Thursday – Saturday). 1 member of staff (0.51 FTE). Auchterarder Open 32 hours per week (Thursday – Saturday). 2 members of staff (1.15 FTE). Birnam Open 11.5 hours per week (Thursday – Saturday). 1 member of staff (0.31 FTE). Blairgowrie Open 33 hours per week (Tuesday – Saturday). 3 members of staff (1.34 FTE). Breadalbane 5 Page 27 of 350
Page 28
PKC - GENERAL# Open 37 hours per week (Tuesday – Saturday). 3 members of staff (1.97 FTE). Comrie Open 11 hours per week (Thursday – Saturday). 1 member of staff (0.37 FTE). Loch Leven Open 37 hours per week (Monday – Saturday). 4 members of staff (3.27 FTE). North Inch Open 37 hours per week (Tuesday – Saturday). 4 members of staff (2.04 FTE). Pitlochry Open 15 hours per week (Wednesday – Saturday). 1 member of staff (0.51 FTE). Scone Open 29 hours per week (Tuesday – Saturday). 3 members of staff (1.13 FTE). Strathearn Open 37 hours per week (Tuesday – Saturday). 4 members of staff (2.76 FTE). Mobile Libraries 72 hours per week (Tuesday – Saturday). 2 members of staff (2 FTE) 129 stops across the whole region. 320,444 annual visits. 780 active borrowers. Vehicles to be replaced in 2026. Support Services 7 members of staff (7.01 FTE) Digital Services 3 members of staff (2 FTE). Page 28 of 350
Page 29
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Appendix 2 FUTURE OF LIBRARY SERVICES OPTION APPRAISAL The table below provides a description of all options including savings, staffing reduction, key risks and benefits. The following section provides the appraisal methodology and the option appraisal itself leading to the identification of the preferred option. Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits 1 Do Nothing Retain current levels of service provision. NIL Would require recurring funding (approximately £375,000 and annual pay award/inflation increase). NIL • Requires commitment to ongoing funding and annual inflation increases beyond current funding period 1 April 2027. • Does not address Estate Strategy. • Maintains statutory provision within definition of adequate. • Maintains support for city, town and village centres through footfall, culture and heritage offer. • Maintains skills and lifelong learning opportunities. 2 Continue Investment in Library Services through a Community Services Hub Model This option proposes sustained investment in library services by reshaping libraries as multi-purpose Community Service Hubs. Under this model, library provision is integrated with wider NIL Would require recurring funding (approximately £375,000 and annual pay award/inflation increase). NIL • Requires commitment to ongoing funding and annual inflation increases beyond current funding period 1 April 2027. • Benefits realised over the medium term rather than immediately. • Requires strong governance and partnership coordination. • Maintains statutory adequacy of library provision. • Protects and strengthens town and rural libraries. • Aligns libraries with preventative spend, wellbeing and place- based priorities. • Supports town centres, tourism and community resilience. • Responds directly to community feedback 5 Page 29 of 350
Page 30
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits wellbeing, tourism, cultural and community services, with delivery adapted to reflect local scale, role and need across Perth city, towns and rural settlements. Key Elements of the Option 1. Locality-Based Community Services Hubs • Libraries operate as locally tailored hubs responding to community needs and opportunities. • Increased co- location and partnership working with wellbeing, advice, cultural, tourism and community partners. • More flexible use of space to support events, learning, creative activity, outreach and community-led initiatives. favouring enhancement over reduction of services. • Potential for additional income and external funding through expanded hub activity. • Supports long-term sustainability of the library network without closures. • Strong alignment with Council priorities on prevention, inclusive growth and place. • Offers a positive alternative to service reduction options. • Provides a scalable model capable of adapting over time as demand changes. Page 30 of 350
Page 31
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits 2. Differentiated Local Models • Perth City (AK Bell Library and North Inch): Retain their role as the principal city libraries and information resource • Town Libraries: Strengthen their role within town centres, supporting wellbeing, cultural activity, visitor information and local economic vitality. • Rural Libraries and Mobile Services: Prioritise access, outreach, digital support and partnership delivery to maintain services in smaller settlements. 3. Partnership and External Funding Page 31 of 350
Page 32
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits • Expand partnership- based delivery with Health and Social Care Partnership, NHS, third sector organisations, cultural bodies and tourism partners. • Increase opportunities to secure grant funding, sponsorship and income linked to wellbeing, culture and place-based programmes. 3 Integrate Public and School Library Provision Relocating to schools or other buildings and reducing number of dedicated Library buildings (applies to Alyth, Comrie, Pitlochry, Blairgowrie, Scone, Auchterarder. No immediate savings – also requires capital and revenue investment to achieve moves. NIL Staffing resource still required to deliver services on another site. • Significant costs of change (capital spend to cover adaptation/build and revenue costs. Pitlochry Library is costing approximately £500,000). • Would require the same ongoing commitment to additional funding as maintaining existing service sites. • Combined services work best in Secondary environments due to mix of public and pupils – only Blairgowrie and • Maintains statutory provision within definition of adequate. • Potential to move to co- location over time, reducing Perth and Kinross Council Estate. Page 32 of 350
Page 33
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits Auchterarder offer this opportunity. • Achievement of moves depends on capital investment to adapt accommodation to make it suitable for public use. • No available accommodation within existing schools to host public library provision without significant capital investment. • Timescales will extend existing arrangements beyond current funding period. 4 All Library Services Transfer to Direct Control of Perth and Kinross Council NIL – Significant additional costs to Perth and Kinross Council through loss of Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) savings. NIL • Loss of NDR Savings £400k per annum (£221k for 4 Campus Libraries alone). Currently being reviewed by Tayside Assessor. • Increases Perth and Kinross Council headcount and staff costs liability. • Limited expertise in the strategic development of services. • Doesn’t recognise the positive relationship between Perth and Kinross Council and Culture Perth and Kinross – including performance against KPI’s. Gives Perth and Kinross Council direct control of service provision. Page 33 of 350
Page 34
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits • Leaves Culture Perth and Kinross with only Museum and Gallery Services triggering a possible review. 5 Reduce Opening Hours Reduce opening Hours at Scone, Auchterarder and Hub Libraries by the equivalent of 1 day per week. This may not mean a full day closure but a reduction over the week equivalent to 1 day. Culture Perth and Kinross Savings £195,295 One off Costs of Change (Est.) Redundancy: £97,500.00. Strain on Pension: £159,000. 5.35 FTE • There is a risk that further funding cuts to Culture Perth and Kinross mean that this is revisited quickly. • Does not reduce Council estate. • There will be one-off costs of change including potential redundancy and strain on pension fund costs. • Reduction in school library service to Kinross HS, Crieff HS, Breadalbane Academy and St Johns RC HS. 3 days service rather than 4. • Reduced support for city, town and village centres through footfall, culture and heritage offer. • Protects rural community services whilst achieving savings. • Maintains statutory provision within definition of adequate. • Enables consultation on pattern of reduced opening hours to reflect local community needs. • Does not leave vacant buildings for Perth and Kinross Council to dispose of. • Options for staff to reduce working hours rather than face redundancy. 6 Reduce Opening Hours and Consolidate Perth City Library services. As above but additionally closing North Inch Public service, retaining school services Tuesday-Friday only. Culture Perth and Kinross Savings: £218,599 One off Costs of Change (Est.) Redundancy: £109,000. Strain on Pension: 7.04FTE • There is a risk that further funding cut to Culture Perth and Kinross mean that this is revisited quickly. • Does not reduce Council estate. • There will be one-off costs of change including potential redundancy and strain on pension fund costs. • Protects rural community services whilst achieving savings. • Maintains Statutory provision within definition of adequate. • Enables consultation on pattern of reduced opening hours to reflect local community needs. Page 34 of 350
Page 35
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits £ 177,753.85. • Reduction in school library service to Kinross HS, Crieff HS, Breadalbane Academy and St Johns RC HS. 3 days service rather than 4. • The housing around the North Inch Campus is a key locality area. Closing this community facility reduced services on offer. • Reduced support for town and village centres through footfall, culture and heritage offer. • Reduces skills and lifelong learning opportunities, particularly in geographical area around North Inch Campus. • Does not leave vacant buildings for Perth and Kinross Council to dispose of. • Options for staff to reduce working hours rather than face redundancy. 7 Retain 5 Hub Libraries and Close all Remaining Libraries Closure of Scone, Auchterarder, Comrie, Birnam, Pitlochry, Alyth, North Inch Libraries (retaining North Inch School Library). Culture Perth and Kinross savings: £280,503 Perth and Kinross Council savings: £36,701.15 One off costs of change (Est.) Redundancy: £140,000. 6.7FTE • Will incur NDR costs until properties can be disposed of. • Likely to face national challenge/judicial review. • Poses further financial risk to Birnam Arts. • Already rejected by Council and likely to face further significant community challenge. • There will be one-off costs of change including potential redundancy and strain on pension fund costs. • Reduces Council estate although leaves vacant properties for disposal or reuse. However, does potentially transfer the NDR costs on vacant buildings to the Council. • Achieves significant savings. Page 35 of 350
Page 36
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits Strain on Pension: £ 228,307.69. • Impacts on Primary School access to library resources. (e.g. RDM has no school library so relies on Scone). • Reduces support for city, town and village centres through footfall, culture and heritage offer in areas affected by closures. • Reduces skills and lifelong learning opportunities in areas affected by closures. 8 Retain 5 Hub Libraries on Reduced Opening Hours and Close all Remaining Libraries. As above closing all Libraries other than the Hub Libraries and additionally reducing the opening hours of those Hub Libraries. CPK Savings: £430,200 PKC Savings: £36,701.15 One off Costs of Change (Est.) Redundancy: £215,000. Strain on Pension: £350,615.38. 10.7 FTE • Unlikely to meet definition of ‘adequate provision for the population’ so risk of national challenge/Judicial review. • Will incur NDR costs until properties can be disposed of. • Poses further financial risk to Birnam Arts. • Already rejected by Council and likely to face further significant community challenge. • There will be one-off costs of change including potential redundancy and strain on pension fund costs. • Impacts on Primary School access to library resources. (e.g. RDM has no school library so relies on Scone) • Reduces Council estate although leaves vacant properties for disposal or reuse. However, does potentially transfer the NDR costs on vacant buildings to the Council. • Achieves significant savings. Page 36 of 350
Page 37
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Option Description Savings Staffing Reduction Key Risks Key Benefits • Reduces support for city, town and village centres through footfall, culture and heritage offer in areas affected by closures. • Reduces skills and lifelong learning opportunities in areas affected by closures. Page 37 of 350
Page 38
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Appraisal Methodology Options have been assessed against five core criteria aligned to statutory duties and Council priorities: Criterion Description Weighting Statutory Compliance Ability to meet the requirement to provide an “adequate” library service 25% Financial Sustainability Affordability over the medium–long term, including recurring costs and savings 25% Community Impact & Equality of Access Impact on access, inequalities, and community outcomes 20% Deliverability & Risk Practicality of implementation, including cost of change and operational risk 15% Strategic Alignment & Long-Term Value Alignment with Council priorities (prevention, place, inclusive growth) 15% Scoring Scale Each option is scored on a scale of 1 to 5: • 5 = Very Strong • 4 = Strong • 3 = Moderate • 2 = Weak • 1 = Very Weak Page 38 of 350
Page 39
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Detailed Appraisal Matrix Option Statutory (25%) Financial (25%) Community (20%) Deliverability (15%) Strategic (15%) Weighted Score / 5 1. Do Nothing 5 2 4 5 2 3.40 2. Community Services Hub Model 5 3 5 4 5 4.35 3. Integrate with Schools 4 2 3 2 3 2.85 4. Transfer to PKC 4 1 3 3 2 2.45 5. Reduce Opening Hours 4 3 2 4 2 3.00 6. Reduce Hours + Consolidate Perth 3 3 2 3 2 2.55 7. Retain 5 Hubs, Close Rest 2 4 1 2 2 2.35 8. Retain 5 Hubs + Reduced Hours 1 5 1 2 2 2.10 The scoring reflects a consistent and evidence-based assessment of each option. Page 39 of 350
Page 40
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Headline Interpretation Option 2 – Community Services Hub Model (Score: 4.35 / 5) • Highest scoring option overall • Performs strongly across: o statutory compliance o community impact o strategic alignment • Moderate financial pressure, but balanced by: o long-term value o transformation potential This is the preferred option Score Rationale Criterion Score Justification Statutory 5 Maintains a full network and aligns strongly with SLIC principles (literacy, access, wellbeing, culture). No reduction in provision Financial 3 Requires ongoing £375k but avoids costs of closures, redundancy, and legal challenge. No immediate savings, but potential for longer-term sustainability. Community 5 Protects access across all geographies, responds to consultation feedback, and builds on strong community engagement. Deliverability 4 Achievable using existing estate and staff, but requires programme management and partnership coordination. Strategic 5 Direct alignment with prevention, place-based delivery, and inclusive growth priorities Option 1 – Do Nothing (Score: 3.40 / 5) • Strong on statutory compliance and deliverability • However: Page 40 of 350
Page 41
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal o financially unsustainable o weak strategic fit Not viable long-term Score Rationale Criterion Score Justification Statutory 5 Fully compliant; maintains all services Financial 2 Requires ongoing funding with no transformation or efficiencies Community 4 Maintains access but does not improve outcomes Deliverability 5 No change required – very low risk Strategic 2 Does not support transformation or long-term sustainability Option 5 – Reduce Opening Hours (Score: 3.00 / 5) • Moderate financial benefit • Retains statutory compliance • But: o negative impact on access and outcomes o limited strategic value Short-term mitigation only Score Rationale Criterion Score Justification Statutory 4 Likely remains “adequate”, but reduced access creates risk Page 41 of 350
Page 42
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Criterion Score Justification Financial 3 Generates moderate savings (~£195k), but offset by one-off costs Community 2 Reduces access, particularly for schools and vulnerable users Deliverability 4 Relatively straightforward to implement Strategic 2 Does not support transformation or prevention agenda Options 3, 4, 6 (Scores: 2.45–2.85) • Mixed performance • Key issues: o high capital cost (Option 3) o loss of financial benefits (Option 4) o adverse community impacts (Option 6) Not preferred Score Rationale Option 3 – Integrate with Schools (Score: 2.85) Criterion Score Justification Statutory 4 Potentially compliant, but access constraints may emerge Financial 2 Requires capital investment and delivers no short- term savings Community 3 Mixed – potential co-location benefits but reduced accessibility Deliverability 2 Complex; dependent on school capacity and capital funding Strategic 3 Partial alignment but limited scalability Page 42 of 350
Page 43
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Score rationale Option 6 – Reduce Hours + Consolidate Perth (Score: 2.55) Criterion Score Justification Statutory 3 Increased risk due to closure of North Inch Financial 3 Additional savings vs Option 5 but still modest Community 2 Disproportionate impact on higher-need area Deliverability 3 More complex than Option 5 due to closure element Strategic 2 Reduces access; weak alignment with prevention agenda Score rationale Option 4 – Transfer to PKC (Score: 2.45) Criterion Score Justification Statutory 4 Likely compliant Financial 1 Loss of ~£400k NDR relief creates significant additional cost Community 3 Neutral impact on access Deliverability 3 Operationally feasible but requires organisational restructuring Strategic 2 Weak alignment with current partnership model Options 7 & 8 (Scores: 2.10–2.35) • Highest financial savings • However: o significant statutory risk o major negative community impact o high likelihood of challenge Page 43 of 350
Page 44
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal Not acceptable options Score Rationale Option 7 – Retain 5 Hubs, Close Rest (Score: 2.35) Criterion Score Justification Statutory 2 High risk of failing “adequate” provision Financial 4 Generates significant savings Community 1 Major reduction in access; strong negative impact Deliverability 2 High risk of challenge and implementation complexity Strategic 2 Contradicts inclusion and place-based priorities Score Rationale Option 8 – 5 Hubs + Reduced Hours (Score: 2.10) Criterion Score Justification Statutory 1 Likely fails adequacy test Financial 5 Highest savings Community 1 Severe impact on access and outcomes Deliverability 2 High risk of legal/community challenge Strategic 2 Fundamentally misaligned with Council priorities Conclusion The weighted appraisal indicates that: Option 2 achieves the highest overall score because it balances statutory compliance, financial sustainability, community impact and long-term strategic value. While requiring continued investment, it: • avoids the legal and reputational risks of service reduction Page 44 of 350
Page 45
Reviewing Options for Future of Library Services - Options Appraisal • supports prevention and place-based delivery • provides the strongest platform for long-term transformation Lower-scoring options either fail to meet statutory expectations, have unacceptable community impacts, or do not provide a sustainable long-term solution. Page 45 of 350
Page 46
Page 46 of 350
Page 47
Appendix 3 Benchmarking Case Studies Libraries as Community Service Hubs (UK & Scotland) 1. Integrated Library Hub Model – Kirklees Council (England) Overview Kirklees Council has developed a network of Integrated Library Hubs, repositioning libraries as multi-purpose centres providing access to a wide range of council and community services. Integrated Library Hubs FINAL.pdf Model The hubs combine: • Library services (books, digital access, cultural activity) • Council customer services and advice • Digital inclusion support • Early help and wellbeing services • Community engagement and outreach This creates a single-access point for public services within local communities. Outcomes • 92% of residents within 2 miles of a hub • 63% of enquiries resolved at first contact • 46,000+ digital transactions delivered • 31% increase in IT usage • Delivered within existing resources, contributing to wider savings Key Benefits • Improved access and convenience for residents • Increased efficiency across council services • Stronger community engagement • Enhanced digital inclusion Relevance to Option 2 • Demonstrates a fully integrated hub model • Provides evidence of: o improved outcomes o operational efficiency • Direct comparator for town and city “anchor hub” locations Key Learning • Integration (not just co-location) is critical • Early focus on customer access and digital support delivers quick wins • Can be delivered without significant additional cost 5 Page 47 of 350
Page 48
2. Libraries as Health & Wellbeing Hubs – Scotland (“NHS Near Me”) Overview Across Scotland, libraries are used as local access points for NHS services, particularly through the “Near Me” video consultation programme, delivered in partnership with NHS Boards and local authorities. Co-creating-libraries-for-wellbeing-Final-Report.pdf Model Libraries provide: • Private spaces for NHS appointments • Digital access and equipment • Staff support for users • Integration with NHS systems This is a partnership-led model, using existing library infrastructure. Outcomes • Delivered across 13+ local authority areas New Near Me Hub Launches in Clydebank Library | West Dunbartonshire Council • Increased access to healthcare services • Reduced travel, particularly in rural areas • Improved support for digitally excluded users • Increased use of library facilities Key Benefits • Tackles digital exclusion and inequality • Supports preventative health and early intervention • Strengthens partnership between: o local government o NHS • Delivered quickly and cost-effectively Relevance to Option 2 • Demonstrates targeted service integration without major restructuring • Particularly applicable to: o rural libraries o mobile provision • Supports the case for: o partnership-led delivery model Key Learning • Partnership agreements are essential • Libraries are trusted settings, improving uptake • Smaller interventions can deliver high impact quickly Page 48 of 350
Page 49
3. Parkhead Library – Health & Social Care Hub (Glasgow) Overview Parkhead Library has been integrated into a Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP) Hub, creating a co-located facility delivering library, health, and community services Parkhead Hub | Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership Parkhead Hub opening event Model The hub brings together: • Library services • Health and social care provision • Community spaces and activities • Informal support and social spaces The library functions as both: • A standalone service • A gateway into wider public services Outcomes • Improved access to multiple services in one location • Increased use of community facilities • Enhanced visibility of health and support services • Reduced need for multiple journeys between services Key Benefits • Strengthens integration between services • Supports prevention and early intervention • Enhances user experience through co-location • Reinforces library as a community anchor Relevance to Option 2 • Strong Scottish comparator for co-located hub model • Demonstrates: o integration with HSCP/NHS o place-based service delivery • Particularly relevant for: o Perth City / major town hubs Key Learning • Co-location must be supported by active service integration • Libraries provide a trusted and accessible front door • Governance and partnership clarity are critical Page 49 of 350
Page 50
Page 50 of 350
Page 51
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Perth and Kinross Council Date of Meeting: 17 June 2026 Report Title: Draft Visitor Levy Scheme for Perth and Kinross for Statutory Public Consultation Report Number: 26/175 Report Author: Kirsty Easton, Business Growth Team Leader - Economy, Development and Planning Organisational Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to present a Draft Visitor Levy Scheme for Perth and Kinross for consideration by Council to proceed to statutory public consultation. The Council is not being asked at this stage to implement a Visitor Levy. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Context 4. Main Issues / Proposed Visitor Levy Scheme 5. Proposals / Use of Visitor Levy Funds 6. Conclusion 7. Impact Value Assessment 8. Appendices 2. Recommendations It is recommended that Perth and Kinross Council: 2.1 Notes the content of the report; 2.2 Approves, for the purpose of undertaking statutory public consultation, the Draft Visitor Levy Scheme (as set out in this report and Appendix 3), based on a fixed-rate levy per room/unit per night; 6 Page 51 of 350
Page 52
2.3 Notes that the Draft Visitor Levy Scheme identifies £4 per night fixed rate, to be applied for the full length of stay, as the initial reference point for consultation, alongside alternative options of £3 and £5; and instructs officers to test these alongside other permissible options (including a percentage based-rate), through the statutory consultation; 2.4 Instructs officers to undertake the statutory public consultation in accordance with the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024) and the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Act, and to further develop the Draft Scheme, including refinement of the fixed-rate model, exemptions, governance arrangements and proposed use of revenues, having regard to consultation feedback; 2.5 Asks the Strategic Lead Economy, Development and Planning to prepare a further report to be presented to the Council following completion of a statutory public consultation of no less than 12 weeks setting out: - the outcome of consultation; - a finalised proposed Visitor Levy Scheme (including recommended levy rate); - detailed implementation, governance and administrative arrangements; and - a recommendation on whether to adopt a Visitor Levy in Perth and Kinross. 3. Background/Context 3.1 In line with the requirements of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, and Scottish Government and VisitScotland guidance, a minimum 12-week statutory public consultation must be undertaken before any final decision is taken on the introduction of a Visitor Levy Scheme in Perth and Kinross. The consultation will seek views on a draft Visitor Levy Scheme and will include specific questions on the key elements of the scheme, including: • the proposed levy model and rate (including any variation or caps); • the scope of application, including geographical coverage; • exemptions, reductions or reliefs; • the proposed use of revenues and the balance of investment priorities; • governance and decision-making arrangements, including the role of any Visitor Levy Forum; • the anticipated impacts on businesses, communities and the visitor economy; • implementation arrangements and timescales; and • monitoring, reporting and review of the scheme. This consultation will provide stakeholders, including local communities, businesses and the tourism sector, with the opportunity to inform and shape the final scheme prior to consideration by Council. Page 52 of 350
Page 53
3.2 The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 provides local authorities with discretionary powers to introduce a levy on overnight accommodation within their area. 3.3 In March 2026, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Act was passed. This introduced additional flexibility, enabling local authorities to apply: • a fixed rate per night. • a tiered fixed rate per night structure; or • a percentage-based levy. 3.4 The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Act has been passed by the Scottish Parliament and received Royal Assent on 21 May 2026. The Act is now on the statute book. As with most legislation, it provisions will come into force in accordance with commencement arrangements, which are expected to be set by Scottish Ministers through regulations. 3.5 The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Act was developed following feedback from local authorities, accommodation providers and tourism sector representatives across Scotland regarding the practical operation of percentage-based visitor levy models. The amendments received cross-party support during Parliamentary consideration and reflected broader recognition that greater flexibility was required to allow local authorities to develop approaches better suited to local circumstances. Industry and tourism bodies have also been more broadly supportive of the additional flexibility provided through the Amendment Act, particularly in relation to the potential for simpler fixed-rate models which may reduce administrative complexity for accommodation providers and improve transparency for visitors. 3.6 In this context, the proposals set out within this report are being brought forward based on the Act and anticipated commencement arrangements. The Council is not being asked at this stage to implement a Visitor Levy, but rather to approve a draft scheme for the purposes of statutory public consultation. Any final decision to adopt a Visitor Levy, including the model to be applied, will be taken by Council at a later date and will be subject to the relevant legislation being in force at that time. 3.7 This approach is considered to be appropriate and proportionate, enabling continued development of the Scheme and stakeholder engagement, while ensuring that no implementation or binding commitment is made in advance of the legislative framework being fully in place. Early Engagement 3.8 VisitScotland Visitor Levy guidance highlights early engagement as best practice, enabling local authorities to engage stakeholders at an early stage to inform scheme development and refine proposals in advance of the statutory consultation required under the Act, leading to a more robust and evidence- based consultation. Page 53 of 350
Page 54
3.9 In February 2025, Council approved early engagement with residents, businesses and visitors to inform the development of a potential Visitor Levy Scheme. A detailed summary of early engagement findings is provided in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. Appendix 2 (October 2025) presents the core analysis, based on a validated sample of 1,126 responses, and is therefore regarded as the most robust and statistically reliable dataset. Appendix 1 (February 2026) provides an updated analysis based on the full dataset of 1,590 responses, including a large proportion of visitor responses. This version has been produced to ensure full transparency and allow scrutiny of all responses. However, it includes data that may be less reliable, and its findings should therefore be interpreted with caution. 3.10 It should also be noted that the early engagement findings were derived from open-ended questions exploring a potential Visitor Levy, rather than a defined draft scheme. The draft scheme presented in this report is more specific and, if approved, will be subject to a minimum 12-week statutory public consultation. It is therefore anticipated that the findings from the statutory public consultation will provide a more specific and informed view based on the detailed proposals set out. The potential for equality-related issues to arise within the statutory public consultation process will be actively considered, including when determining consultees, publicising a consultation, and publishing the results through a consultation report. Key points of early engagement activities are set out below: 3.11 Engagement activity undertaken between June and September 2025 included: • an online survey (1,590 responses). • stakeholder sessions and drop-in events. • independent visitor research. 3.12 Key themes identified through engagement included: • concerns regarding the complexity of a percentage-based model. • administrative burden on accommodation providers. • potential impacts on price competitiveness. • the importance of transparency in how funds would be used. 3.13 The visitor economy is a key sector within Perth and Kinross, contributing: • approximately 2.01 million nights annually. • an estimated £364 million in visitor expenditure (c. £324 million Gross Value Added). • 7,000 full-time equivalent jobs. 3.14 The proposed Visitor Levy Scheme aligns with the ambitions set out in: • the Perth and Kinross Tourism Strategy 2025–2030. • Perth and Kinross Economic Action Plan. • the Council’s Corporate Plan. • wider regional and national economic priorities. Page 54 of 350
Page 55
4. Main Issues / Proposed Visitor Levy Scheme Fixed Rate Visitor Levy Scheme 4.1 Officers propose that the Draft Visitor Levy Scheme (Appendix 3) is based on a fixed-rate levy per unit per night applied for the full length of stay across the Perth and Kinross Council area. 4.2 The fixed-rate approach reflects feedback from early engagement with accommodation providers, wider tourism businesses, residents and community organisations at a local and national level, and is considered to provide: • simplicity and transparency for visitors. • reduced administrative complexity for accommodation providers. • greater certainty of income to support investment. 4.3 While there was some support for the principle of a visitor levy, engagement highlighted concerns about the complexity, transparency and administrative burden associated with a percentage-based model. In particular, businesses raised challenges linked to variable room rates, bundled products and seasonal pricing. Following the introduction of amended legislation permitting a fixed-rate approach, officers have designed the scheme with this feedback in mind and consider that a fixed-rate levy better addresses the concerns raised, while still delivering income levels broadly aligned with those discussed during early engagement. Members should note that a fixed-rate approach may result in a proportionally higher charge at lower-cost accommodation. However, on balance, it is considered that the overall benefits of a fixed-rate approach, in terms of simplicity, transparency and administrative efficiency, outweigh the differences in proportional impact between lower-cost and premium accommodation. 4.4 The following indicative fixed-rate options have been modelled: • £3 per night. • £4 per night. • £5 per night. 4.5 Based on 2024 visitation data (2.01 million nights), estimated annual income is: • £6.0 million at £3. • £8.0 million at £4. • £10.0 million at £5. These figures are indicative and will be subject to adjustment based on exemptions, caps and behavioural impacts. Page 55 of 350
Page 56
4.6 The Act requires local authorities to set the fixed amount the levy will be charged at and publicise this as part of the outline proposed scheme. On the basis of modelling and, as highlighted by stakeholders during early engagement, the level of investment needed such as in tourism marketing, infrastructure and visitor management, a fixed-rate levy of £4 per night is identified as the Council’s initial reference point for consultation. Alternative rates of £3 and £5 per night are also presented to test stakeholder views and to understand the sensitivity of income generation and potential impacts across the visitor economy. 4.7 The proposed levy will apply to all chargeable overnight accommodation based within the Perth and Kinross Council boundary. This includes: • Hotels. • Hostels. • Guest houses. • Bed and breakfast accommodation. • Self-catering accommodation, including short-term lets. • All paid accommodation on caravan sites and camping sites, including: o static caravans o touring caravans o campervan and motorhome pitches o temporary tent pitches. • Accommodation in a vehicle or vessel which is permanently or predominantly situated in one place. • Any other premises where a room or area is provided for residential purposes and is not the visitor’s only or usual place of residence. 4.8 The Visitor Levy is payable by any person staying overnight in accommodation within the Perth and Kinross Council area where that accommodation is not the person’s only or usual place of residence, whether temporary or otherwise. 4.9 Individuals who do not have an only or usual place of residence are therefore excluded from liability to pay the levy. This includes, but is not limited to: • people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. • refugees and asylum seekers; and • individuals whose homes are unfit or unsafe for habitation, including those experiencing domestic abuse or other forms of violence. 4.10 Members of Gypsy/Traveller communities staying on dedicated sites are also excluded from paying the levy. 4.11 In addition to the exclusions above, individuals defined in section 14(1) of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act are exempt from paying the levy. Page 56 of 350
Page 57
4.12 At the time of agreeing the Scheme, exemptions under section 14(1) apply to individuals in receipt of the following benefits: • Disability Living Allowance (DLA) • Disability Assistance • Attendance Allowance • Pension Age Disability Benefit • Personal Independence Payment (PIP) 4.13 In recognition of changes to disability benefits in Scotland from 2025, exemptions will also apply to individuals in receipt of: • Adult Disability Payment (ADP). • Pension Age Disability Payment (PADP). • Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance (SADLA). 4.14 Certain carers are also exempt from the Visitor Levy, specifically individuals in receipt of: • Carer’s Allowance. • the Carer’s Element of Universal Credit. Payment, Reimbursement and VAT 4.15 Individuals who are exempt or excluded from paying the levy will be required to pay the levy at the point of purchase to the accommodation provider and subsequently apply to the Council for reimbursement, unless the accommodation has been arranged and paid for directly by the Council. 4.16 In line with current HMRC interpretation, the visitor levy is expected to form part of the VATable value of accommodation. This means VAT will be applied to the levy amount where the accommodation provider is VAT‑registered, increasing the effective price impact on visitors. This position has been subject to ongoing professional discussion but remains the basis for current scheme design. Visitors will therefore initially pay the visitor levy inclusive of VAT where the accommodation provider is VAT-registered. The levy itself will be paid across by the Council, but the VAT element will not be recoverable, resulting in a small residual cost to the visitor excluded or exempt from paying the levy. If the accommodation provider is non VAT-registered, there would be no residual cost to the visitor. Discretionary Exemptions 4.17 Certain accommodation providers may apply to the Council for a discretionary site-based exemption where both of the following criteria are met: • the property is occupied by a charity or a trustee of a charity; • and overnight stays are wholly or mainly for charitable or educational purposes. Page 57 of 350
Page 58
4.18 This discretionary exemption aligns with circumstances in which charities may be entitled to mandatory Non-Domestic Rates relief. Applications may therefore be cross-checked against the relevant Non-Domestic Rates records. 4.19 In addition, it is proposed that the Council includes a discretionary exemption for: • Perth and Kinross residents staying overnight in the local authority area, recognising their existing contribution to local services through Council Tax and their year-round contribution to the local economy. 4.20 This exemption is intended to: • Acknowledge that residents already fund many of the services and infrastructure that are supported by a visitor levy when visiting another area. • Encourage local tourism and overnight stays within Perth and Kinross, supporting local businesses. • Respond to concerns raised during early engagement with elected members and stakeholders that residents from more rural or island communities within Perth and Kinross may require overnight accommodation in connection with essential activities, including attendance at medical or hospital appointments. • Avoid the need for residents to disclose sensitive personal or medical information in order to qualify for an exemption. An all-residents exemption removes the requirement to evidence the reason for stay, simplifying administration and protecting individual privacy. Accommodation Not Subject to the Levy 4.21 The Visitor Levy does not apply to the following types of accommodation or stays: • Local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites and registered social landlord Gypsy/Traveller sites. • Accommodation provided in a vehicle or vessel undertaking a journey involving one or more overnight stops; This includes Motorhomes & Campervans. • Accommodation provided free of charge. • Seasonal pitches on caravan sites unless the pitch is sub-let to another visitor for an overnight stay. 5. Proposal / Use of Visitor Levy Funds 5.1 In line with legislative requirements, all income raised through a Visitor Levy must be reinvested locally in facilities and services which are used by, or for the benefit of, visitors. Visitor Levy income can support both revenue and capital investment that is aligned to the statutory purposes of the Scheme. Page 58 of 350
Page 59
Any capital investment or borrowing would be subject to the Council’s existing prudential borrowing framework and financial regulations. The Act does not stipulate that revenue generated by a visitor levy should be used within a certain time period. Local authorities may choose to carry funds forward between years or place funds in earmarked reserves. This may be particularly relevant in the early years of a Visitor Levy scheme, where estimation of expected levels of net visitor levy proceeds may be more difficult to predict. 5.2 In developing the Draft Scheme, the Council has aligned proposed investment priorities with the Perth and Kinross Tourism Strategy 2025–2030 and wider economic, community and place-based objectives. How Visitor Levy Income Could Be Used in Practice 5.3 The strategic purpose of the Visitor Levy is to support the delivery of high- quality visitor experiences, strengthen the resilience of the visitor economy, and ensure that tourism growth is sustainable and well-managed. 5.4 If agreed, the draft Visitor Levy scheme proposes priority areas for investment of revenues, including: - Supporting the tourism sector - Supporting communities and managing impacts of tourism 5.5 Subject to approval, the statutory public consultation will seek views on the proposed use of Visitor Levy revenues, including the appropriate balance of investment across these priority areas. For consultation purposes, it is proposed that investment would be broadly balanced between these priority areas, while allowing flexibility to respond to emerging needs and priorities. Supporting tourism 5.6 Investment to support tourism will be aligned the Tourism Strategy and is expected to focus on: • Destination marketing and promotion. • Visitor infrastructure and services. • Tourism product and market development. • Industry growth, skills and resilience. • Community-led tourism initiatives. 5.7 By way of illustration, a single year of visitor levy income could support a programme of investment across these themes, including: • Support for the promotion of Perthshire as a year-round destination, especially off season. • Support for local heritage, interpretation and visitor information services, including libraries and local archives, supporting the role of providing tourist information. Page 59 of 350
Page 60
• Support for the maintenance and enhancement of local cultural and community assets, including libraries, some leisure facilities which are used by visitors and both residents and visitors • New integrated visitor hubs on key routes such as the River Tay Way, including toilets, showers, bike shelters and Changing Places facilities. • Enhanced signage, wayfinding and interpretation across Perth, rural towns and key long distance tourism routes. • Infrastructure for campervan and motorhome facilities, including waste disposal points along high-demand corridors such as the A9. • A programme of countryside rangers and visitor management at tourism hotspots to protect landscapes and reduce pressure on communities. • Development of cultural and heritage experiences linked to Perth’s UNESCO City of Craft and Folk Art status. • Support for off-season festivals, major events and business tourism activity, helping extend the season and spread visitor benefits year-round. • Investment in active travel and cycling infrastructure. • Community grants for locally-led visitor projects in towns and villages across Perth and Kinross. • Investment in transport connectivity, active travel infrastructure and public realm improvements which improve accessibility for residents, visitors and local businesses • Improvements to public spaces, parks and visitor-facing town centre infrastructure which support both community wellbeing and the visitor experience Supporting Communities and Managing Tourism Impacts 5.8 Importantly, the visitor levy is not solely intended to support tourism growth. It also provides an opportunity to support communities in managing the impacts of visitor activity, particularly in areas experiencing higher levels of demand. Many facilities and services used by visitors are shared with and relied upon by local residents and communities. 5.9 This may include investment to: • provide additional countryside rangers and land management at busy visitor sites. • support the maintenance of roads, car parks, toilets and waste facilities in high-pressure areas. • improve visitor management, signage and parking to reduce disruption to local communities. • support local amenity improvements in places most affected by tourism. • contribute to projects addressing housing and short-term let pressures, where clearly linked to visitor impacts. • Support the maintenance and improvement of community facilities and public assets which experience additional demand associated with visitor activity. Page 60 of 350
Page 61
5.10 This approach ensures that the benefits of tourism are more directly reinvested into the places most affected by visitor activity, helping to balance economic opportunity with community wellbeing and environmental sustainability. It recognises that investment in the visitor economy can also deliver wider social and place-based benefits for residents across Perth and Kinross. Governance and Transparency 5.11 Decisions on the allocation of Visitor Levy funds will be taken by the Council or relevant Committee in accordance with established governance arrangements with the Visitor Levy Forum providing advice in a non-decision- making capacity. Local authorities are required to maintain separate accounts for the money received under the Visitor Levy scheme. 5.12 To ensure transparency and accountability, the Council will publish an annual “Levy In, Levy Out” report see section 5.23 below. Visitor Levy Collection and Enforcement 5.13 Accommodation providers operating within the Perth and Kinross Council area will be responsible for the collection of the Visitor Levy on behalf of the Council. 5.14 Providers will be required to submit quarterly returns via the proposed national online Visitor Levy portal (visitorlevy.scot). These returns must detail: • the total accommodation charges liable for the levy; and • the total Visitor Levy collected during the reporting period. 5.15 Payment of the levy due will be made at the same time as the submission of the quarterly return. 5.16 To support accommodation providers in meeting the costs associated with administering the Visitor Levy, providers will be entitled to retain a proportion of the levy collected at their establishment(s) before remitting the remaining balance to the Council. 5.17 The proposed retention rates are as follows: • 2.5% of levy collected for all businesses with no cap 5.18 Accommodation providers will be required to maintain accurate and complete records of all transactions subject to the Visitor Levy. 5.19 Perth and Kinross Council will undertake monitoring and inspections, where necessary, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the scheme, including the accuracy of returns and the timely remittance of levy payments. Page 61 of 350
Page 62
5.20 Accommodation providers who fail to comply with the scheme may be subject to penalties and enforcement action, in accordance with the powers set out in the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act and associated regulations. Reviewing the Scheme 5.21 In close liaison with the Visitor Levy Forum, the Council will formally review the Visitor Levy Scheme every three years to assess whether it is achieving its stated objectives and to evaluate the impacts of the Scheme on: • accommodation providers and the wider visitor economy • visitors to the area • local communities 5.22 The findings of each review will be published, alongside a report detailing how Visitor Levy income has been spent and the benefits delivered through levy-funded projects. The findings will also contribute to a wider evaluation of the impact of tourism on Perth and Kinross residents, businesses and communities. The three-year review would also be the opportunity to consider inflation impacts on the fixed amount. Annual Reporting and Monitoring 5.23 Within the first 18 months of the Scheme’s launch, and for each subsequent 12-month period, the Council will prepare and publish a “Levy In, Levy Out” annual report. This report will set out: • the total value of Visitor Levy income collected. • administration costs and net proceeds. • how net proceeds have been allocated and spent. • the performance of the Scheme against its objectives. • area level breakdowns of investment, enabling communities to see the benefits of levy revenues raised locally. 5.24 Performance will be assessed using existing and proportionate monitoring arrangements, which may include: • resident and visitor satisfaction surveys. • occupancy and demand trend data. • reports to Council Committees and the Visitor Levy Forum. • monitoring of investment across services, infrastructure, culture, heritage, and events • evaluation of funded projects and programmes. 5.25 This annual reporting will support transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in the delivery of the Scheme. Page 62 of 350
Page 63
Amendment of the Scheme 5.26 Where the Council proposes to amend the Scheme following a review, it will undertake public consultation on the proposed changes and publish a report setting out the decision taken and the justification for it. 5.27 Significant changes to the Scheme will be subject to a statutory 18-month implementation period. Significant changes include: • increasing the geographical area covered by the Scheme • increasing the fixed rate of the levy • removing any existing exemptions 5.28 An increase in the levy rate, or a change between a percentage-based levy and a fixed-amount levy, will be subject to a minimum six-month implementation period, in accordance with the provisions of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act and the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Act, where applicable. Visitor Levy Forum 5.29 Within six months after the date of the decision to introduce a Visitor Levy scheme, a Visitor Levy Forum will be established to provide advice and support in relation to the operation and ongoing development of the Visitor Levy Scheme. The Forum will be consulted on the review of the Scheme, any proposed amendments, and the priorities for how Visitor Levy revenues are allocated. 5.30 The Forum will comprise a broad range of representatives reflecting the diversity of the visitor economy and local communities across Perth and Kinross. Membership will include representation from: • accommodation providers, covering a range of accommodation types and locations across the area. • wider tourism-related businesses with an interest in the visitor economy. • local tourism organisations and destination management bodies. • local communities and residents, with particular emphasis on rural areas and communities experiencing higher visitor pressures. • cultural and creative organisations with a visitor-facing role; and • national tourism organisations, including VisitScotland. 5.31 The Forum will also seek to reflect visitor perspectives, drawing on visitor insight, research, and feedback data to ensure that discussions and advice are informed by the experiences and priorities of visitors to Perth and Kinross. 5.32 One or more representatives of Perth and Kinross Council will attend Forum meetings to provide information, context, and advice. Council officers may contribute to discussions and make recommendations but will not be members of the Forum. Page 63 of 350
Page 64
5.33 The Visitor Levy Forum will operate as a non-decision-making, advisory body. All decisions relating to the Visitor Levy Scheme, including decisions on rates, exemptions, use of funds and amendments to the Scheme, will remain the responsibility of Perth and Kinross Council, acting through the appropriate governance arrangement. 5.34 The remit of the Visitor Levy Forum will include: • advising on annual investment priorities for the use of Visitor Levy funds, within the statutory framework set out in the Act • reviewing and commenting on the performance and delivery of the Scheme against its objectives • considering evidence on the impacts of the Scheme on businesses, visitors, and communities • providing formal comment on any proposed changes to levy rates, caps, exemptions, or the geographic scope of the Scheme prior to public consultation 5.35 The Forum will help ensure that the Visitor Levy Scheme is informed by sector expertise, community insight, and visitor experience, supporting transparent and effective use of levy revenues for local benefit. The Forum will contribute to a wider evaluation of the impact of tourism on Perth and Kinross residents, businesses and communities. As part of the consultation, views will also be sought on the relationship between Perth and Kinross Tourism Partnership and the Visitor Levy Forum. Scheme Administration 5.36 The introduction and ongoing administration of a Visitor Levy scheme will require a combination of staffing, systems, and governance resources. Key requirements include establishing and operating a local registration and returns process for accommodation providers (likely through the national visitorlevy.scot platform), processing and reconciling levy payments, undertaking compliance, audit and enforcement activity, and administering exemptions and reimbursements. In addition, resources will be required for stakeholder engagement, communications, financial management, and annual reporting to ensure transparency and effective use of funds. Particular operational demands arise from managing exemption claims (for example disability-related reimbursements), which will require trained staff, appropriate data protection arrangements, and timely processing systems. 5.37 While it is anticipated that administration costs can be met from levy income, the Council will need to ensure sufficient capacity and expertise are in place from the outset to support implementation and maintain an efficient, compliant and customer-focused service. Detailed administrative costs have not yet been finalised and will be developed and presented as part of the full scheme for Council consideration following the statutory public consultation. These costs will be subject to further refinement during the implementation period, as operational arrangements are tested and finalised. Page 64 of 350
Page 65
Economic Analysis 5.38 An independent Economic Impact Assessment (Appendix 4) has been undertaken to assess the potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed Visitor Levy Scheme on the Perth and Kinross visitor economy. The assessment considered visitor expenditure, economic value, employment supported by tourism activity and the potential impacts of different levy levels under a range of demand scenarios. 5.39 The assessment confirms that the visitor economy is a significant component of the Perth and Kinross economy, generating an estimated £367 million in annual visitor expenditure and supporting around 7,000 full-time equivalent jobs across accommodation, hospitality, retail, transport and visitor attractions. 5.40 The modelling indicates that, while the introduction of a Visitor Levy may result in some displacement effects, these are expected to be comparatively modest relative to the scale of revenue generated for reinvestment. Under the central modelling scenario of a £3 nightly levy, the reduction in Gross Value Added (GVA) is estimated at approximately 2%, while generating around £5.85 million annually for reinvestment in the visitor economy and local communities. A £4 rate would be expected to result in a greater reduction in GVA, estimated at around 2.5% to 4%, while generating approximately £8 million in annual revenue. 5.41 Importantly, the assessment notes that the modelling does not include the additional positive economic impacts associated with reinvestment of levy proceeds. Indicative analysis suggests that reinvestment in destination infrastructure, events, marketing, visitor management and public realm improvements could generate additional economic value and employment benefits over time. 5.42 An additional Competitive Advantage Analysis has also been undertaken and is included as Appendix 5. This analysis considered comparator destinations including Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Iceland and New Zealand and concluded that well-governed visitor levy schemes can support improvements in visitor experience, infrastructure, destination management, environmental sustainability and place quality, without materially impacting visitor demand when revenues are transparently reinvested. It should be noted that the international comparator analysis does not explicitly account for differences in VAT treatment of visitor levies. In the UK context, where accommodation is subject to VAT at 20%, the combined effect of VAT and a visitor levy may result in a higher effective price increase than in some comparator destinations. While international evidence indicates that visitor numbers are generally not significantly affected by moderate price increases, this difference should be recognised when interpreting the scale of potential impacts in Perth and Kinross. Page 65 of 350
Page 66
5.43 The findings of both assessments suggest that the key policy consideration is not solely the introduction of a levy itself, but the long-term value created through strategic reinvestment of levy income into infrastructure, services and destination improvements that benefit residents, businesses and visitors alike. Timeline and Next steps 5.44 If approved, the draft Visitor Levy Scheme will be subject to a statutory public consultation of at least 12 weeks. A further report will then be brought to Council to consider the scheme, which may be amended in light of consultation feedback. Subject to approval, a statutory implementation period of 18 months would then apply before the Visitor Levy Scheme comes into effect. 5.45 The figure below provides a timeline and Perth and Kinross Visitor Levy current position: 6 Conclusion 6.1 The Draft Visitor Levy Scheme presents an opportunity to secure sustainable, long-term investment in the visitor economy, supporting infrastructure, services and communities across Perth and Kinross. 6.2 The proposed fixed-rate approach reflects feedback from early engagement and provides a clear, transparent and deliverable model for further consideration. 6.3 In bringing forward these proposals, officers recognise the importance of balancing the needs of the visitor economy with the interests of residents, communities and local businesses. We are here Page 66 of 350
Page 67
6.4 Approval of the Draft Scheme will enable statutory public consultation of at least 12 weeks to be undertaken, ensuring that stakeholders have a further opportunity to shape the final design of the scheme prior to any decision on implementation. 6.5 Subject to approval, and reflecting the formal consultation, a report will be brought back to Council, asking for the adoption of a Visitor Levy in Perth and Kinross. 7. Impact Value Assessment Impact and Value Assessment 8. Appendices 8.1 Appendix 1 – PK Visitor Levy Consultation Report Updated (February 2026) 8.2 Appendix 2 – PK Visitor Levy Consultation Report (October 2025) 8.3 Appendix 3 – PK Draft Visitor Levy Scheme 8.4 Appendix 4 – PK Visitor Levy Scheme Economic Impact Assessment 8.5 Appendix 5 – Competitive Advantage Analysis Page 67 of 350
Page 68
Page 68 of 350
Page 69
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 6 Page 69 of 350
Page 70
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 70 of 350
Page 71
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 71 of 350
Page 72
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 72 of 350
Page 73
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 73 of 350
Page 74
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 74 of 350
Page 75
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 75 of 350
Page 76
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 76 of 350
Page 77
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 77 of 350
Page 78
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 78 of 350
Page 79
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 79 of 350
Page 80
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 80 of 350
Page 81
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 81 of 350
Page 82
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 82 of 350
Page 83
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 83 of 350
Page 84
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 84 of 350
Page 85
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 85 of 350
Page 86
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 86 of 350
Page 87
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 87 of 350
Page 88
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 88 of 350
Page 89
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 89 of 350
Page 90
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 90 of 350
Page 91
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 91 of 350
Page 92
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 92 of 350
Page 93
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 93 of 350
Page 94
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 94 of 350
Page 95
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 95 of 350
Page 96
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 96 of 350
Page 97
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 97 of 350
Page 98
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 98 of 350
Page 99
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 99 of 350
Page 100
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 100 of 350
Page 101
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 101 of 350
Page 102
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 102 of 350
Page 103
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 103 of 350
Page 104
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 104 of 350
Page 105
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 105 of 350
Page 106
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 106 of 350
Page 107
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 107 of 350
Page 108
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 108 of 350
Page 109
APPENDIX 1: Face-to-face Visitor Survey Key Results Page 109 of 350
Page 110
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 110 of 350
Page 111
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 111 of 350
Page 112
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 112 of 350
Page 113
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 113 of 350
Page 114
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 114 of 350
Page 115
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 115 of 350
Page 116
APPENDIX 2: Summary of Drop-In Sessions Page 116 of 350
Page 117
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 117 of 350
Page 118
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 118 of 350
Page 119
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 119 of 350
Page 120
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 120 of 350
Page 121
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 121 of 350
Page 122
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 122 of 350
Page 123
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 123 of 350
Page 124
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 124 of 350
Page 125
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 125 of 350
Page 126
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 126 of 350
Page 127
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 127 of 350
Page 128
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 128 of 350
Page 129
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 129 of 350
Page 130
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 130 of 350
Page 131
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 131 of 350
Page 132
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 132 of 350
Page 133
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 133 of 350
Page 134
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 134 of 350
Page 135
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 135 of 350
Page 136
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 136 of 350
Page 137
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 137 of 350
Page 138
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 138 of 350
Page 139
Any questions? A follow-up discussion? duncan.stewart@56degreeinsight.com | +44 (0) 771 786 8770 jim.eccleston@56degreeinsight.com | +44 (0) 744 703 1396 Page 139 of 350
Page 140
Page 140 of 350
Page 141
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Consultation undertaken by Perth & Kinross Council Updated Report and Analysis conducted by 16th October 2025 6 Page 141 of 350
Page 142
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 142 of 350
Page 143
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 Page 143 of 350
Page 144
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 looks extremely suspicious, given its appearance 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 is based on the following completions: • Businesses: 237 • Residents/community groups: 688 • Visitors: 149 • TOTAL: 1,126 The main results from the 464 ‘visitor surveys’ completed on 4/5 September are analysed separately and summary results presented in Appendix1). We have also updated our analysis of the series of drop-in sessions which continued in September (see Appendix 3). 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 2. Update to previous report – 12th October 2025 Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 Page 144 of 350
Page 145
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 145 of 350
Page 146
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 60% 15% 4% 13% 1% 1% 0% 4% 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 1,126 respondentsl PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS: “Please choose the option that best describes you"Overall, some 1,126 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 (60% - 674 respondents). The next larges proportion were businesses and business interest groups (20% - 237 respondents). Even after removing the 462 4-5 September responses, there is a much bigger sample of visitors than was the case in the earlier report (15 respondents ) – now 13% of the overall sample and 149 responses. Page 146 of 350
Page 147
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 55% 29% 16% 48% 34% 18% 36% 37% 27% 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 1,126 respondentsl (237 Businesses, 688 residents/community groups, 149 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). In the August analysis, the sample size for visitors was too small to allow analysis. Across the 149 sample, a large proportion are unsure (27%), whilst there is a more even split between those in agreement (36%) and those who disagreed (37%). Page 147 of 350
Page 148
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 64% 15% 14% 8% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% Scenery and Natural Beauty Outdoor Activities and Walking Routes Visiting Friends and Family Local Culture and Heritage Wildlife and Natural Environment Hospitality and Friendly People Specific Attractions (e.g., Loch Leven) Central Location and Accessibility Quietness and Unspoiled Nature Resident or Business Owner Tourism Levy Concerns High Street and Local Shops Attractions of Perth and Kinross to visitors Base: 119 visitors “If you are a visitor to Perth and Kinross, what first attracted you to the area?"Those 119 visitors who provided a response to what first attracted them to the area were most likely to reference the area’s scenery and beauty (64%). Outdoor activities (15%), and visiting friends and family (14%) were also mentioned by significant numbers. Page 148 of 350
Page 149
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 149 of 350
Page 150
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 150 of 350
Page 151
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 36% 30% 14% 10% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% Opposition to Visitor Levy (General) Public Toilets Public Transport Enhancement Public Realm Improvements (General) Support for Local Businesses and Economy Campervan and Motorhome Facilities Events Programming and Support Cleaning up area (e.g. litter or dog poo) Road Infrastructure Improvement Financial Management and Council Efficiency Accommodation for Staff Marketing and Promotion of the Area Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement Attracting Visitors and Improving Perth's Appeal Maintenance of Public Spaces (Parks & Recreation) Tourism Strategy and Planning Active Travel Infrastructure (Walking & Cycling) Ranger Services and Countryside Management 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: 118 visitors Amongst 118 visitors who responded to this question, some 36% of them simply said they were opposed to a visitor levy generally. Otherwise, 30% again suggested investment in public toilets should be the priority. Page 151 of 350
Page 152
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 32% 21% 19% 12% 12% 11% 11% 10% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% Public Toilets Public Transport Enhancement Public Realm Improvements (General) Marketing and Promotion of the Area Road Infrastructure Improvement 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 Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement Accommodation for Staff 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 Addressing Anti-Social Behaviour and Safety Opposition to Visitor Levy (General) Tourism Strategy and Planning Financial Management and Council Efficiency 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: 377 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, 32% wanted investment in public toilets, 21% wanted investment in public transport and 19% wanted public realm improvements. Page 152 of 350
Page 153
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 40% 21% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% Opposition to Visitor Levy (General) Public Toilets Support for Local Businesses and Economy Public Transport Enhancement Cleaning up area (e.g. litter or dog poo) Marketing and Promotion of the Area Road Infrastructure Improvement Public Realm Improvements (General) Financial Management and Council Efficiency Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement Events Programming and Support Campervan and Motorhome Facilities Accommodation for Staff Attracting Visitors and Improving Perth's Appeal Addressing Anti-Social Behaviour and Safety Ranger Services and Countryside Management Maintenance of Public Spaces (Parks & Recreation) Active Travel Infrastructure (Walking & Cycling) Tourism Strategy and Planning Community Empowerment and Local Involvement Support for Culture and Heritage 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: 533 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 (40%). The only suggestion made by over one in five was again, to invest in public toilets (21%). Page 153 of 350
Page 154
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 154 of 350
Page 155
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 30% 15% 27% 3% 24% 1% 14% 10% 35% 3% 32% 6% 40% 17% 23% 0% 20% 0% 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: 457 respondentsl (71 Businesses, 338 residents/community groups, 30 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% 2.4% 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 155 of 350
Page 156
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 15% 16% 34% 9% 4% 5% 14% 3% 5% 24% 26% 8% 15% 12% 9% 4% 6% 3% 36% 11% 15% 11% 4% 17% 4% 6% 9% 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: 555 respondents (116 Businesses, 369 residents/community groups, 47 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 156 of 350
Page 157
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 31% 31% 15% 15% 8% 4% 4% 4% 35% 8% 16% 14% 5% 13% 3% 17% 30% 10% 20% 20% 30% 20% 0% 0% 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: 110 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 similar proportions of visitors cited fairness and equity concerns. Page 157 of 350
Page 158
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 40% 20% 15% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0% 39% 49% 3% 10% 3% 29% 13% 7% 17% 50% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 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: 132 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 50% 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 158 of 350
Page 159
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 33% 17% 17% 17% 6% 6% 6% 0% 42% 5% 19% 24% 9% 6% 1% 4% 33% 0% 33% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 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: 132 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. * Note: only 6 visitors suggested this level so their responses should be treated with caution. Page 159 of 350
Page 160
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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% 29% 27% 11% 0% 8% 6% 5% 2% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 5% 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: 522 respondents (141 Businesses, 272 residents/community groups, 83 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 29% 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 160 of 350
Page 161
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 161 of 350
Page 162
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 16% 7% 37% 14% 11% 7% 6% 2% 28% 11% 27% 9% 8% 7% 7% 4% 11% 6% 40% 18% 9% 5% 4% 7% No Not sure-no preference Other Yes - 1 night 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: 1,031 respondents (221 Businesses, 628 residents/community groups, 136 P&K visitors) Some 11% of visitors and 16% of 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 or two nights (25% and 27% respectively) than residents (18%). Page 162 of 350
Page 163
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 49% 21% 30% 62% 12% 26% 26% 22% 52% 89% 8% 3% 19% 22% 59% 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: 873 respondents (173 Businesses, 538 residents/community groups, 119 P&K visitors, 398 who support the Levy, 406 who oppose the Levy) Larger proportions of each stakeholder group felt that a visitor levy should apply to the whole region rather than just certain areas. This was especially the case amongst residents and amongst those in support of a visitor levy generally Page 163 of 350
Page 164
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 39% 24% 24% 13% 7% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% Strongly oppose the levy Concerns about negative impact on rural areas and small businesses Apply levy in urban areas/Perth city only Apply levy in specific high-tourism areas (e.g., Highland Perthshire, Pitlochry) Questionnaire bias and lack of 'no levy' option Levy as a means to address over-tourism and infrastructure strain Apply levy region-wide for equitable distribution of funds 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: 230 respondents Amongst the 230 respondents who selected ‘part of the region’, other than the 39% who simply said they strongly opposed the levy, the main suggestions were concerns about the impact of the levy on rural areas and small businesses (24%), that it should be applied in urban areas/Perth only (24%) and/or applied in ‘high-tourism areas’ such as Highland Perthshire and Pitlochry (13%). Page 164 of 350
Page 165
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 34% 31% 34% 53% 22% 24% 24% 30% 46% 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: 858 respondents (169 Businesses, 529 residents/community groups, 119 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 165 of 350
Page 166
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 24% 21% 19% 17% 12% 5% 5% 4% 2% 1% Discourage Off-Season Levy Summer/Peak Season Only (June-Sept) No Levy at Any Time Concerns about Levy Implementation and Impact April to October Levy Should Apply to Specific Areas/Events Festive Period (Christmas/Hogmanay) May to September Year-Round Levy (potentially scaled) Winter Only 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: 321 respondents Amongst the 321 respondents who felt that any Levy should be applied seasonally, the main suggestion was that an off-season levy should simply be discouraged (24%), whilst 21% felt it should only apply to the peak season. Page 166 of 350
Page 167
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 167 of 350
Page 168
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 24% 70% 46% 49% 11% 80% 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: 1,126 respondents (237 Businesses, 688 residents/community groups, 149 P&K visitors) When asked whether they supported or opposed a visitor levy, across the whole sample, a majority opposed it (58%), with 36% in support and 6% unsure. Visitors were most strongly opposed (80%), followed by businesses (70%). There was more of a balanced viewpoint amongst residents with 46% in support and 49% in opposition. OVERALL: Support 36% Oppose 58% DK 6% Page 168 of 350
Page 169
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 169 of 350
Page 170
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 36% 2% 15% 6% 11% 6% 8% 15% 8% 3% 36% 20% 10% 9% 6% 11% 8% 4% 5% 5% 36% 10% 16% 22% 10% 1% 10% 2% 7% 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: 436 respondents (87 Businesses, 239 residents/community groups, 81 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 22% of visitors felt there should be exemptions for vulnerable groups. Page 170 of 350
Page 171
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 45% 20% 35% 51% 14% 35% 62% 9% 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: 1,126 respondents (237 Businesses, 688 residents/community groups, 149 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 171 of 350
Page 172
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 172 of 350
Page 173
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 87% 69% 53% 57% 46% 45% 32% 16% 73% 67% 61% 51% 49% 40% 42% 25% 74% 70% 66% 55% 41% 50% 38% 25% 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: 1,126 respondents (237 Businesses, 688 residents/community groups, 149 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 173 of 350
Page 174
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 22% 14% 12% 11% 10% 6% 6% 5% 5% Community Representatives Tourism Sector Stakeholders Business and Economy Experts Health and Social Care Advocates Visitor Representation 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: 189 respondents In addition, 189 respondents provided additional suggestions regarding representation on a Forum – community representatives was the most popular additional type of member (22%) along with tourism sector stakeholders (14%) and business and economy experts (12%). Page 174 of 350
Page 175
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 175 of 350
Page 176
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 77% 17% 7% 66% 23% 10% 60% 25% 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: 893 respondents (193 Businesses, 564 residents/community groups, 102 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 60% of visitors. Page 176 of 350
Page 177
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 7% 25% 6% 2% 60% 19% 41% 8% 1% 30% 9% 34% 13% 2% 43% 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: 523 respondents (124 Businesses, 337 residents/community groups, 47 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 177 of 350
Page 178
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 178 of 350
Page 179
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 28% 61% 12% 39% 38% 23% 13% 58% 29% 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: 1,048 respondents (225 Businesses, 638 residents/community groups, 138 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 58% believing those not registered for VAT should not be covered by the levy. Page 179 of 350
Page 180
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 35% 22% 14% 11% 9% 8% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% Negative Impact on Tourism Opposition to the Levy - General Impact on Scottish Residents Economic Concerns - Businesses Administrative Burden on Businesses Lack of Trust in Council Spending Impact on Campervans and Wild Camping VAT and Tax Implications Concerns about Fairness and Equity Need for Transparency and Accountability Concerns about Specific Accommodation Types Suggestions for Revenue Usage Call for Better City Management Comparison with Other Regions Support for the Levy - General Impact on Rural Areas and Communities Simplicity and Clarity of the Scheme Alternative Funding Suggestions Final additional comments “Any further comments?” Base: 565 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 180 of 350
Page 181
APPENDIX 1: Analysis of results removed from the core report n=464 ‘visitors’ (4/5 September) Page 181 of 350
Page 182
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 • Over the course of the survey, some 1,590 responses were obtained. However this number included a large spike of completions over two days on the 4/5 September, supposedly from visitors, which indicated that potentially a specific trade association/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 looks extremely suspicious, having suddenly appeared over such a short period of time, it was agreed that they should be removed from the core analysis in this report – and presented separately in the appendix. • We have just presented the responses from some of the key questions relating to views about the visitor levy (full crosstabulations containing the responses to all of the survey questions have been presented separately). Responses are actually quite similar to those obtained from visitors in the core report – some 13% support the introduction of a levy, while 83% oppose its introduction. Amongst visitors reported in the core section of the report, 11% support and 80% oppose. • Given that it is impossible to confirm the authenticity of every element of data across the survey as a whole, given the similarity in key responses, there is obviously a possibility that some of the visitor data that has been retained in the core report – but collected over a much longer and more consistent time period – may also have been subject to some gerrymandering. The negativity amongst visitors is higher than any other stakeholder group, and much more so than we have witnessed in other areas. • The conduct of 132 face to face interviews with visitors (reported in the next section) provides a different picture with 71% in support and 11% in opposition. The methodology where an interviewer is the interface with the survey, and surveys conducted during holidays to the area (often resulting in higher degrees of positivity generally), means we cannot directly compare to the results of the online survey responses, however the magnitude of this difference in the key finding adds some credence to the need to question the validity of the visitor response in the core survey. The data contained in this section Page 182 of 350
Page 183
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 13% 83% Support a Visitor Levy Oppose a Visitor Levy Visitors' excluded from core analysis 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: 464 ‘visitors’ excluded from core analysis Page 183 of 350
Page 184
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 30% 15% 27% 3% 24% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 7% The most suitable Levy rate amongst those who think Visitor Levies should be considered Base: 97 ‘visitors’ excluded from core analysis “If you think Perth and Kinross should consider introducing a Visitor Levy, what do you think is a suitable rate?” Mean: 2.2% Page 184 of 350
Page 185
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 17% 9% 39% 18% 6% 3% 3% 4% No Not sure-no preference Other Yes - 1 night Yes - 3 nights Yes - 5 nights Yes - 7 nights Yes - more than 7 nights Visitors' excluded from core analysis 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: 434 ‘visitors’ excluded from core analysis Page 185 of 350
Page 186
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 29% 18% 53% Whole region Part of the region Not sure/no preference Visitors' excluded from core analysis Geographical application of a Visitor Levy “Do you think a Visitor Levy should apply to the whole region, or only in certain areas?” Base: 363 ‘visitors’ excluded from core analysis Page 186 of 350
Page 187
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 25% 24% 52% Whole year Part of the year Not sure/no preference Visitors' excluded from core analysis Seasonal application of Levy “Do you think a Visitor Levy should apply for the whole year or only for part of the year?” Base: 357 ‘visitors’ excluded from core analysis Page 187 of 350
Page 188
APPENDIX 2: Face-to-face Visitor Survey Key Results Page 188 of 350
Page 189
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 • 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 189 of 350
Page 190
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 • 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 190 of 350
Page 191
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 • 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 191 of 350
Page 192
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 192 of 350
Page 193
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 193 of 350
Page 194
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 194 of 350
Page 195
APPENDIX 3: Summary of Drop-In Sessions Page 195 of 350
Page 196
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 196 of 350
Page 197
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 197 of 350
Page 198
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 198 of 350
Page 199
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 199 of 350
Page 200
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 200 of 350
Page 201
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 201 of 350
Page 202
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 202 of 350
Page 203
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 203 of 350
Page 204
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 204 of 350
Page 205
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 205 of 350
Page 206
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 206 of 350
Page 207
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 207 of 350
Page 208
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 208 of 350
Page 209
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 209 of 350
Page 210
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 210 of 350
Page 211
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 211 of 350
Page 212
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 212 of 350
Page 213
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 213 of 350
Page 214
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 214 of 350
Page 215
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 215 of 350
Page 216
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 216 of 350
Page 217
Results of the consultation to help shape the Perth and Kinross approach to a Visitor Levy Updated Report compiled by 56 Degree Insight Limited, 16th October 2025 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 217 of 350
Page 218
Any questions? A follow-up discussion? duncan.stewart@56degreeinsight.com | +44 (0) 771 786 8770 jim.eccleston@56degreeinsight.com | +44 (0) 744 703 1396 Page 218 of 350
Page 219
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme
Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 1
Appendix 3
Perth and Kinross Council
Draft Visitor Levy Scheme – FIXED RATE
Proposed adoption under the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024
Perth and Kinross Council intend to use the powers conferred on it by the Visitor Levy (Scotland)
Act 2024 ('the Act') to impose a visitor levy in respect of persons staying in certain types of
accommodation overnight in its local authority area. Below are the details of the Perth and
Kinross Visitor Levy Scheme ('the Scheme') based on a Fixed Rate Levy.
Contents
1. Background
2. Strategic Context and Alignment
3. Scheme Objectives
4. Scheme Area, Start Date and Duration
5. Fixed Rate Levy Scheme (levels of income and suggested approach)
6. Accommodation Liable for the Levy
7. Exemptions and Reimbursement
8. Collection and Enforcement
9. Reviewing and Changing the Scheme
10. Governance, Visitor Levy Forum and Administration
6
Page 219 of 350Page 220
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 2 Perth and Kinross Council Draft Visitor Levy Scheme – FIXED RATE 1. Background ___________________________________________________________________ VISITOR LEVY (SCOTLAND) ACT The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 28 May 2025. The Act provides Local Authorities across Scotland with the discretionary power to introduce a visitor levy by applying a set percentage charge to the cost of overnight accommodation paid by visitors staying within their area. Under the legislation, it is for each individual Local Authority to determine: • whether a visitor levy should be introduced • the percentage rate at which the levy would be set • how any revenues raised would be allocated In February 2025, following the launch of the Perth and Kinross Tourism Strategy and Action Plan 2025–2030, the Economy and Infrastructure Committee of Perth & Kinross Council agreed to commence a period of early stage engagement on a visitor levy. The purpose of this engagement was to explore whether, and how, a visitor levy could be implemented within the Perth and Kinross area. The findings from this early-stage engagement have been used to inform: • whether a Visitor Levy should be introduced in Perth and Kinross • which visitors, or types of accommodation would be subject to the levy • the priority areas which revenues raised by the levy could be directed to An extensive early – stage engagement process was undertaken, including an online survey, in person drop-in sessions and 1-2-1 meetings with accommodation providers. An analysis of the results is available. VISITOR LEVY (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT ACT The Scottish Parliament passed the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Act in March 2026. This legislation provides Local Authorities with additional flexibility in how a visitor levy may be applied to overnight accommodation. In particular, the Amendment Act enables councils to introduce a levy based on:- • a fixed amount per room or area per night Page 220 of 350
Page 221
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 3 • a variable fixed-amount per room or area per night This is as an alternative to a percentage-based levy. Following Royal Assent, the Amendment Act is projected to come into force in September/October 2026. Once a commencement date has been set this will allow Local Authorities to set a fixed monetary charge per room, or area per night. The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Act was introduced following Perth and Kinross Council’s early-stage engagement phase. That engagement was undertaken in the context of the original legislation and therefore focused solely on a percentage-based levy model. As such, consultees were not specifically asked for views on a fixed amount visitor levy scheme. The possibility of a fixed amount model was raised during the engagement regularly as a preferred option, particularly for accommodation providers. This was also fed back nationally and, along with other areas and direct representation from the tourism industry, helped to shape the amendment. Perth and Kinross Council intend to use the powers conferred by both the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 (“the Act”) and the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Act to develop and draft a visitor levy scheme for consideration. The proposed scheme would apply to persons staying overnight in specified types of accommodation within the Perth and Kinross local authority area. 2. Strategic Context & Alignment ___________________________________________________________________ The visitor economy is one of the most important sectors in Perth and Kinross, supporting businesses, employment, and communities across the area. This is reflected in our Perth and Kinross Local Economic Action Plan 2025 - 2030 and the Tay Cities Regional Prospectus for Growth 2025-2035. It is also one of the key action areas under the Council’s Corporate Plan 2022 2028 priority of ‘developing a resilient, stronger, and greener local economy’, where we commit to promoting what our city and towns have to offer to businesses, investors and visitors. Nationally, the visitor economy is also one of the Scottish Government’s six key growth sectors. The Perth and Kinross visitor economy sector generates: - • 2.01 million visits to Perth and Kinross in 2024 • 2.8 nights average length of stay • Total economic impact of £641 million for local businesses and communities • 7000 full time equivalent jobs The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act requires that income raised through a visitor levy is reinvested locally in facilities and services which are used by, or for the benefit of, leisure and business visitors. In developing an outline draft visitor levy scheme, Local Authorities are required to identify their own priorities for development and delivery within their local area. In doing so, a Local Authority must have regard to, and align with, the principles and objectives of relevant local tourism Page 221 of 350
Page 222
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 4 strategies, alongside other national, regional, and local strategies which impact upon the visitor economy. The Council has therefore aligned the draft scheme to the proposed investment priorities with the Perth and Kinross Tourism Strategy and Action Plan 2025–2030, as well as wider economic, community and place-based objectives. 3. Scheme Objectives The Visitor Levy Guidance requires that revenues raised through a visitor levy are reinvested locally in facilities and services which are used by, or for the benefit of, leisure and business visitors. The proposed Visitor Levy Scheme is intended to strengthen this sector by ensuring that tourism growth is well-managed, sustainable and delivers tangible benefits for residents, as well as visitors. The overarching aim of the proposed Visitor Levy scheme is to both sustain tourism and mitigate against visitor impacts across Perth and Kinross, supporting year-round visitation, encouraging longer stays, and maintaining a commitment to delivering high-quality visitor experiences that also benefit local communities. The strategic purpose of the levy is therefore to: • Support the tourism sector • Support communities and managing impacts of tourism For consultation purposes, it is proposed that investment would be broadly balanced between these priority areas, while allowing flexibility to respond to emerging needs and priorities. SUPPORTING TOURISM If a Visitor Levy is introduced, revenues raised would be reinvested in the following priority areas, in alignment with the Tourism Strategy; - • Area Promotion and Destination Marketing Investment to promote Perth and Kinross as a high-quality, year-round destination, encouraging longer stays, increased visitor spend and dispersal across the area • Investment and Infrastructure Investment in visitor facing infrastructure and services that enhance the visitor experience. • Market Development and Internationalisation Support for the development of tourism products, cultural and heritage experiences, and opportunities to grow new and international markets Page 222 of 350
Page 223
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 5 • Industry Growth and Resilience Support to strengthen the sustainability and resilience of the visitor economy, including skills, business support, and employability • Supporting Community-Led Initiatives – Community Tourism Fund Targeted funding to support local, community-led visitor projects, particularly in rural areas and outside the peak season How the levy could be used in practice. By way of illustration, one year of visitor levy income could support investment in. - Support for the promotion of Perthshire as a year-round destination, especially out of season -New integrated visitor hubs on key routes such as the River Tay Way, including toilets, showers, bike shelters and changing places facilities -Support for local heritage, interpretation and visitor information services, including libraries and local archives providing tourist information. -Enhance signage, wayfinding and interpretation across Perth, rural towns and key long distance tourism routes -Infrastructure for campervan and motorhome facilities, including waste disposal points along high demand corridors such as the A9 -A programme of countryside rangers at visitor management tourism hotspots to protect landscapes and reduce pressure on communities - Development of cultural and heritage experiences linked to Perth’s UNESCO City of Craft and Folk Art status. - Support for off season festivals, major events and business tourism activity, helping extend the season and spread visitor benefits year round -Investment in active travel and cycling infrastructure, building in the UCI Gran Fondo legacy -Community grants for locally-led visitor projects in towns and villages across Perth and Kinross SUPPORTING COMMMUNITIES AND MANAGING IMPACTS OF TOURISM The visitor levy is not only about supporting tourism growth. The levy income can also be used to help communities manage visitor pressures. Many facilities and services used by visitors are shared with, and relied upon by local residents and communities. This may include investment to: - • Support the maintenance of roads, car parks, toilets and waste facilities in high-pressure areas • Support for the maintenance and enhancement of local cultural and community assets, including libraries, some leisure facilities which are used by visitors and both residents and visitors • Support transport connectivity, active travel infrastructure and public realm improvements which improve accessibility for residents, visitors and local businesses • Improve public spaces, parks and visitor-facing town centre infrastructure which support both community wellbeing and the visitor experience Page 223 of 350
Page 224
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 6 • Support local amenity improvements in places affected by tourism. • Contribute to projects addressing housing and short-term let pressures, where clearly linked to visitor impacts. • Support the maintenance and improvement of community facilities and public assets which experience additional demand associated with visitor activity. • Improve visitor management, signage and parking to reduce disruption to local communities • Provide additional countryside rangers and land management at busy visitor sites This approach ensures that the benefits of tourism are more directly reinvested into the places most affected by visitor activity, helping to balance economic opportunity with community wellbeing and environmental sustainability. It recognises that investment in the visitor economy can also deliver wider social and place-based benefits for residents across Perth and Kinross. 4. Scheme Area, Start Date and Duration ___________________________________________________________________ The Scheme covers all the Perth and Kinross Council boundary area and will apply to overnight stays commencing on the scheme start date, which will be confirmed following the statutory 18- month implementation period. Accommodation bookings made on, or after the date of the formal scheme adoption by the Council, will be subject to the levy from the start date. The Scheme will apply indefinitely, or until the Council decides to amend, or end it. IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD In line with the Visitor Levy Guidance, Local Authorities must allow an 18-month implementation period before the levy comes into effect. The 18-month implementation period starts after a Local Authority announces its decision on the visitor levy. The decision to announce must be on the same day, or after the public consultation results are considered. This period will enable the Council and accommodation providers to prepare fully for implementation, including the development and testing of levy collection and reporting processes such as the - integration of the national visitor levy portal; preparation of statutory enforcement guidance; and delivery of training and support for accommodation providers. This phased approach is intended to ensure the levy is introduced in a consistent, transparent, and proportionate manner from the outset. Note: “visitorlevy.scot” is the national digital service being developed in partnership between the Improvement Service and Local Authorities to help accommodation providers meet their responsibilities where a local visitor levy (sometimes called a “tourist tax”) has been introduced. It provides a consistent, secure way to register, submit returns and make payments in areas where a council has approved a scheme. (https://www.improvementservice.org.uk/products-and-services/digital-public-services/visitor- levy) Page 224 of 350
Page 225
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 7 5.FIXED RATE LEVY SCHEME PROPOSED APPROACH A Fixed Rate Levy, of an amount to be agreed will apply for the full length of stay at the same level across the entire Perth and Kinross Council boundary area. There will be no cap on the number of nights the levy will be applied by accommodation providers. The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Amendment Bill was introduced following the Perth and Kinross Visitor Levy early-stage consultation in June to September 2025. The Visitor Levy (Amendment) bill currently gives local authorities full discretion on the value of the fixed amount levy. The Perth and Kinross Council early-stage engagement did not capture the advantages/ or disadvantages as the engagement was based on the existing legislation at that time in the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill. There is no guidance on appropriate fixed rates provided in the amended Visitor Levy Guidance. LEVELS OF INCOME The table below provides potential fixed rate levy revenue based on three values chargeables for eligible properties, based on the fixed amount per unit, or area per night. Based on available published data on visitation to the Perth and Kinross area published on VisitScotland’s corporate, figures for 2024 show there were 2.01 million nights spent by visitors in Perth and Kinross. (https://www.visitscotland.org/research-insights/regions/perthshire Of those, 80% were in Serviced Accommodation, Self Catering or other properties which would incur a levy other than camping/hostels.; 16% were campsites; 4% were staying in a friend or family’s home. Suggested Fixed Levy Rate No. of nights Estimated Total Levy Generated (2024) £3.00 2.01 million £6,030,000 (£6.03 million) £4.00 2.01 million £8,040,000 (£8.04 million) £5.00 2.01 million £10,050,000 (£10.05 million) Caveats apply to these figures in that this may be an estimated value based on all visitors. Deductions of exclusions by protected groups, varying party sizes, and the application of caps for duration of stay (note: most overnight stays are less than three nights) have not been applied. Source. International visitors: International Passenger Survey, GB residents: Great Britain Tourism Survey, 2024 For comparability, based on a Percentage Scheme, it is estimated that: - • A 1% Visitor Levy in Perth and Kinross could generate around £1.6m - 1.8m per year. • A 3% love 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. Page 225 of 350
Page 226
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 8 Source. The Moffat Centre for Travel and Tourism Accommodation Appraisal On the basis of modelling, and, as highlighted by stakeholders during the early engagement, the level of investment needed such as in tourism marketing, infrastructure and visitor management, a fixed-rate levy of £4 per night is identified as the Council’s initial reference point for consultation. Alternative rates of £3 and £5 per night are also presented to test stakeholder views and to understand the sensitivity of income generation and potential impacts across the visitor economy. 6. Accommodation Liable for the Levy The levy will apply to all eligible chargeable overnight accommodation, based within the Perth and Kinross Council boundary. This includes: - • hotels. • hostels. • guest houses. • bed and breakfast accommodation. • self-catering accommodation, including short-term lets. • all paid accommodation on caravan sites and camping sites, including temporary tent and campervan pitches. • accommodation in a vehicle, or on board a vessel, which is permanently or predominantly situated in one place; and • any other place at which a room or area is offered by the occupier for residential purposes otherwise than as a visitor's only or usual place of residence. ACCOMMODATION BASE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LEVY The levy does not apply to: - • local authority gypsy and traveller sites, and registered social landlord gypsy and traveller sites. • accommodation in a vehicle or vessel undertaking a journey involving one or more overnight stops. This includes motorhomes and campervans. • accommodation provided at no charge. • seasonal pitches on caravan sites, unless sub-let to another visitor for an overnight stay. 7. Exemptions and Reimbursement The Visitor Levy is payable by anyone staying in accommodation which is not their only or usual place of residence (temporary or otherwise). Individuals who do not have an only or usual place of residence are therefore not required to pay the levy. This includes people who are; - Page 226 of 350
Page 227
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 9 • homeless or at risk of homelessness • refugees and asylum seekers • people whose homes are unfit or unsafe for habitation, including those experiencing domestic abuse or other forms of violence • members of gypsy/traveller communities staying on dedicated sites are also excluded In addition, individuals defined in s. 14 (1) of the Act are exempt from paying the levy. As at the time of agreeing the Scheme, those exempt under s. 14(1) are individuals in receipt of the following benefit payments: - • Disability Living Allowance • Disability Assistance • Attendance Allowance • Pension Age Disability Benefit • Personal Independence Payment Exemptions will be in place for those in receipt of Adult Disability Payment (ADP), Pension Age Disability Payment (PADP), and Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance (SADLA), as these benefits replace existing disability benefits in Scotland from 2025. The list of exemptions was extended to include a wider eligibility of those receiving disability exemption as proposed in updated regulations that came into force on 1 April 2026. Source. The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 Amendment Regulations 2026 Certain groups of carers are also exempt from the visitor levy, specifically individuals in receipt of • Carer’s Allowance or • The Carer’s Element on Universal Credit. DISCRETIONARY EXEMPTIONS There are types of accommodation that may apply to the Council for a discretionary site exemption if they meet both of the following criteria: - • The property is occupied by a charity or trustee of a charity; and • Overnight stays must be wholly or mainly for charitable or educational purposes. This discretionary exemption is aligned with the cases where charities may receive mandatory relief from paying Non-Domestic Rates and may be cross-checked with that register. There will be an exemption in place for residents of Perth and Kinross Council boundary area who are registered for council tax (or within a council-tax registered property) in the Perth and Kinross Council area. REIMBURSEMENT Individuals who are exempt or excluded will need to pay the levy to the accommodation provider and request reimbursement from the Council unless their accommodation has been arranged and paid for directly via the Council. Individuals who are exempt or excluded will need to pay the levy to the accommodation provider. Page 227 of 350
Page 228
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 10 visitorlevy.scot does not facilitate a reimbursement process enabling individuals to request levy payment refunds. As such local authorities are required to set up their own process to enable individuals to apply for reimbursement, which will sit outside the visitor levy platform. Alternative provision will be made for those who do not have internet access. Evidence required to be submitted includes: - • The name of the person exempted or excluded • If exclusion applies, verification of such status from the relevant official body (this can include the Council’s Homelessness service, social services, a relevant third sector provider or Police Scotland) • If exemption applies, a copy (scan or photograph) of the relevant benefit award letter or similar document • Booking confirmation or accommodation invoice - the name of the person exempted or excluded should be included on this document • Proof of payment for the overnight accommodation The Council will assess the evidence received and, if eligible, will reimburse the amount. In line with current HMRC interpretation, the Visitor Levy is expected to form part of the VATable value of accommodation where the accommodation provider is VAT-registered. As a result, visitors may pay the Visitor Levy inclusive of VAT. The Council will reimburse the Visitor Levy amount only. The VAT element is not recoverable and may result in a small residual cost to the visitor. Where the accommodation provider is not VAT-registered, no residual cost will arise. 8. Collection and Enforcement ___________________________________________________________________ Accommodation providers within the Perth and Kinross Council area will be responsible for the collection of the visitor levy on behalf of the Council. Accommodation providers will be required to submit quarterly reports to the proposed national online visitor levy portal (visitorlevy. scot). These returns must detail: - • the total accommodation charges liable for the levy • the total levy collected during the reporting period Payment of the levy will be made at the same time as the submission of the quarterly return. The application of a fixed rate may make the delivery of the scheme easier for Local Authorities and accommodation providers, compared to a percentage-based scheme. This would make local authority management of the scheme and accommodation provider processing costs lower, reducing the budget to administer. Accommodation providers will be required to maintain accurate and complete records of all transactions that are subject to the levy. To support accommodation providers in meeting the costs associated with administering the Visitor Levy, accommodation providers will be entitled to retain a proportion of the levy collected at their establishment, before remitting the remaining balance to the council. The proposed retention rates are. Page 228 of 350
Page 229
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 11 • 2.5% of levy for all businesses with no cap Perth and Kinross Council will undertake monitoring and conduct inspections, as required, to ensure compliance with the Scheme and requirements of the scheme. Accommodation providers who fail to comply with the scheme may be subject to penalties and enforcement action, in accordance with the powers set out in the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act. The size of these penalties is to be set by the local authority. Appeals relating to decisions made by the Council on the operation and/or enforcement of the Scheme can be registered via the Council’s online complaints portal or by email to the contact address published on the Council’s website, following the Council’s formal complaint procedure. 9. Reviewing and Changing the Scheme The Council will review the Scheme every three years to assess whether it is successfully achieving its objectives and to measure the impact of the Scheme on businesses, visitors, and communities. The review will be published along with a report detailing how the income has been spent and the benefits which the levy-funded projects have brought. Within the first 18 months of the Scheme’s launch, and for each 12-month period thereafter, the Council will prepare an annual report detailing the levy value collected, how net proceeds were used, and the performance of the Scheme against its objectives. Performance may be measured through existing reporting methods, including resident and visitor satisfaction surveys, occupancy rate monitoring, committee and Visitor Levy Forum reporting, and tracking of allocated spend on services, infrastructure, culture, heritage, and events. If the Council wishes to amend the Scheme following the review, it will publicly consult on the proposed change and publish a report detailing the decision and its justification. The three-year review would also be the opportunity to consider inflation impacts on the fixed amount. Significant changes to the Scheme will require either a 6-month or 18-month implementation period depending on the change. Significant changes to the Scheme include: - • Increasing the Scheme area – 18 months. • Increasing the fixed amount levy - 6 months • Moving to a percentage rate from a fixed amount or from a fixed amount to a percentage – 6 months; and/or • Removing any exemptions – 18 months. 10. Governance, Visitor Levy Forum and Administration GOVERNANCE Decisions on the allocation of Visitor Levy funds will be taken by the appropriate Council or Committee in accordance with established governance arrangements, informed by the advice of the Visitor Levy Forum. Page 229 of 350
Page 230
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 12 To ensure transparency and accountability, the Council will publish an annual “Levy In, Levy Out” report, setting out: • total Visitor Levy income collected. • administration costs. • how net proceeds have been allocated; and • total Visitor Levy income collected • administration costs • how net proceeds have been allocated VISITOR LEVY FORUM Local Authorities must set up a Visitor Levy Forum within 6 months of a decision being made to introduce a levy scheme. A Visitor Levy Forum will be established to discuss and advise on the Visitor Levy Scheme, including any review of the Scheme and any proposed amendments to the scheme. The forum will be consulted on how the Visitor Levy funds will be spent. The visitor forum will be made up of representatives from • accommodation sector, including operators of different accommodation types from across the region. • wider tourism businesses with an interest in the visitor economy • local tourism organisations and destination management bodies • local communities and residents, with a particular emphasis on ensuring representation from rural areas and communities in visitor hotspot areas • cultural organisations • national tourism bodies, including VisitScotland. The forum will seek to include visitor representation, for example through visitor insight data and research, to ensure that the experience and priorities of actual visitors are reflected in forum discussions. Forum membership may also include elected members; however elected members must not make up a majority of the forum. The Forum is an advisory body with no capacity to make decisions; decisions on the Scheme may only be made by Council Elected Members. The Forum’s remit will include recommending annual priority projects within the statutory use- of-funds scope; scrutinising performance and delivery against the Scheme’s objectives; and commenting formally on any proposed rate, cap, or geographic changes prior to public consultation. ADMINISTRATION The administration of the Visitor Levy scheme will require a combination of staffing, systems and governance arrangements. This includes the operation of registration and returns processes for accommodation providers, reconciliation of levy income, compliance, audit and enforcement activity, and the administration of exemptions and reimbursements. The Council will ensure that sufficient capacity and expertise are in place from the outset to support implementation and maintain an efficient, compliant and customer-focused service. Page 230 of 350
Page 231
Perth and Kinross Council | Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Perth and Kinross Draft Visitor Levy Scheme Page 13 Detailed administrative costs will be developed and presented as part of the final scheme following statutory public consultation and will be refined during the implementation period as operational arrangements are confirmed. Sources. Guidance on the Visitor Levy for Local Authorities guidance-on-the-visitor-levy-for- local-authorities.pdf. The Guidance is currently being updated to take into account new legislation. Page 231 of 350
Page 232
Page 232 of 350
Page 233
Economic Impact Analysis - Perth and Kinross Council Visitor Levy Appendix 4 MOFFAT CENTRE FOR TRAVEL AND TOURISM BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY | 12th May 2026 6 Page 233 of 350
Page 234
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA
This is a formal economic impact assessment (EIA) of introducing a visitor levy in Perth
and Kinross Council Region (Perth and Kinross) under the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act
2024 and Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill 2026. Built on official Scottish
Government Input-Output (I-O) tables (published December 2025), it answers three
questions:
• How big is the existing visitor economy?
• How much money would a levy raise?
• What economic impact, if any, would the levy cause?
All figures are in 2024 constant prices (i.e., inflation has been stripped out). It draws on
2024 visitor volume statistics from the Great Britain Tourism Survey (GBTS), official daily
spending data from VisitScotland, and Scottish Government economic multipliers to
translate £1 of visitor spending into pounds of wider economic value (GVA) and jobs.
The EIA relates to spreadsheet 20260505_PKC_Visitor_Levy_EIA_Model.xlsx
1: The Existing Visitor Economy (Baseline)
Before any levy is introduced, Perth and Kinross already have a substantial visitor
economy. The model records 2,010,000 overnight visitor-nights per year (sourced
from Great Britain Tourism Survey or GBTS 2024 / VisitScotland). Hotels account for
53% of these, followed by self-catering (20%), B&Bs (14%), holiday parks (12%) and
hostels (1%).
Total visitor spending: combining what people pay for their accommodation and what
they spend on food, shopping, transport and activities, comes to £367.5 million per
year (in 2024 prices). About £257 million of that is accommodation revenue; the
remaining £111 million is spending in local shops, restaurants, attractions and
transport. This is calculated from the Average Daily Rates for Accommodation Types,
and the remaining share of visitor spend on other items (excluding travel to the
destination)
In plain terms: For every £1 a visitor spends on a hotel room, they spend roughly
another 43p on food, shops, attractions, and getting around.
Economic value generated (GVA): Using official Scottish Government multipliers,
every pound of visitor spending generates wider economic ripple effects. The model
produces two estimates:
• Type I (conservative): £256 million GVA: this captures the direct spending
effect plus the supply-chain ("indirect") effect, i.e., hotels buying from local food
suppliers, etc.
• Type II (fuller picture): £324 million GVA: this adds the "induced" effect: when
tourism workers spend their wages locally, that spending flows back through the
economy.
Page 234 of 350Page 235
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA Jobs supported: The model estimates: • 6,137 FTE jobs (Type I - direct + supply-chain) • 7,084 FTE jobs (Type II - adding jobs sustained by wage-spending) Plain-English version: Perth and Kinross's visitor economy is worth roughly a third of a billion pounds a year and sustains around 7,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Hotels and food & beverage are by far the largest components. This aligns with figures provided in the Scottish Government Scottish Annual Business Survey. 2: The Economic Value Generated - GVA and the Multiplier Effect Raw spending figures overstate the economic benefit, because some of that money flows straight out of the area (to suppliers elsewhere, imports, etc.). The model therefore calculates Gross Value Added (GVA) - the actual economic value created locally. It uses two internationally standard measures: Type I GVA captures the direct benefit plus the knock-on effect through local supply chains (e.g., a hotel buys linen from a local laundry, which buys detergent from a local supplier). This gives £255.98 million. Type II GVA goes further and counts the induced effect. These are the wages earned by tourism workers, which those workers then spend locally on groceries, housing, leisure etc. This gives £323.60 million. In plain terms: The recommended headline figure is the Type II number. For every £1 visitors spend in Perth and Kinross, approximately 88 pence of genuine local economic value is created. The remaining 12p effectively "leaks" out of the area. This is a healthy ratio as it reflects the fact that tourism in Perth and Kinross is relatively labour- intensive and delivered by locally based businesses. 3: Jobs Supported Using the same Scottish Government multiplier methodology, the model estimates the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs that the visitor economy sustains: Measure FTE Jobs Type I - direct + supply chain jobs 6,137 Type II - direct + supply chain + wage-spending jobs 7,084 Critical caveat (stated explicitly in the model): These are gross jobs supported by visitor spending - they represent existing employment sustained by the visitor economy, not net new jobs created by the levy itself. Introducing the levy may marginally reduce overnight stays which would reduce this figure slightly. Any job-creation from reinvesting levy proceeds is not modelled here. Page 235 of 350
Page 236
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA 4: How Much Would the Levy Raise? Under the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, councils charge a fixed nightly fee per accommodation unit. PKC is modelling four rates: £2.50, £3.00, £4.00 and £5.00 per night. All 2.01 million unit-nights are assumed to be chargeable (no VAT exemptions or individual exemptions are currently applied in the model). After deducting 3% for collection and enforcement costs, the annual net proceeds would be: Levy rate Gross levy revenue Net proceeds (annual) Net proceeds (5-year) £2.50/night £5,025,000 £4,874,250 £24,371,250 £3.00/night £6,030,000 £5,849,100 £29,245,500 £4.00/night £8,040,000 £7,798,800 £38,994,000 £5.00/night £10,050,000 £9,748,500 £48,742,500 Plain-English version: A £3 nightly charge would generate roughly £5.85 million per year for PKC to reinvest - nearly £29 million over five years. Doubling the rate to £5 roughly doubles the take. 5: Will the levy put visitors off? (Displacement and Elasticity) "Price elasticity of demand" (PED) measures how sensitive visitors are to price changes. The application of a visitor levy (regardless of the range from 2% -5%) to the cost of accommodation will increase the overall price of a consumer’s overnight stay to Perth and Kinross. Economic theory suggests that as the cost of goods increases, the quantity demand of those good decreases. The relationship between the magnitude of the price change and the magnitude of the quantity demanded change is known as the price elasticity of demand (PED). As an example, A PED of -0.85 means, for every 1% increase in the total price of a visit, demand falls by 0.85%. Estimates for the PED for an overnight trip vary widely and the academic literature does not suggest a consensus. The Scottish Government commissioned research (accessible at parliament.scot) into estimating a PED for the Scottish Overnight Tourism Sector with the study suggesting a low-end value (that is, least price sensitive response) of -0.2 and a high-end value (that is, the most price sensitive response) of -1.50. The model applies three scenarios, sourced from the Scottish Government's own Financial Memorandum to the Visitor Levy Bill. The analysis cannot determine which scenario is more likely to occur. That is to say, the uncertainty of predicting future Page 236 of 350
Page 237
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA consumer behaviour and the operating environment, it is difficult to comment which PED value is most likely to occur in the real economy. • Low sensitivity (PED = -0.2): Business travellers and loyal visitors who barely notice a small levy increase • Central/recommended (PED = -0.85): The best-estimate midpoint • High sensitivity (PED = -1.5): Price-conscious first-time or leisure visitors who might choose a different destination Crucially, the levy is applied only to accommodation, which is only part of the total trip cost. So, a £3 levy on a weighted average room rate of ~£128/night represents roughly a 2.3% accommodation price increase, but a much smaller percentage of the overall trip cost (once transport, food, activities etc. are included). This dampens the modelled visitor loss significantly. 5: Net economic impact (what the model recommends as the headline figure) The central scenario of £3.00 Visitor Levy with a PED = -0.85 is the model's central baseline for policymakers: Metric Baseline (no levy) Central scenario (£3, PED -0.85) Change Gross GVA (Type II) £323.6m £317.0m -£6.6m (-2.0%) FTE jobs supported (Type II) 7,084 6,938 -147 (-2.1%) Lost visitor nights - ~40,093 - Net levy proceeds raised - £5,849,100 - Under the highest levy rate and highest elasticity scenario (£5, PED = -1.5), the worst case, the net GVA still sits at £304.2 million, a reduction of £19.4 million (6%) from the £323.6 million baseline. Plain-English version: Even in the worst-case scenario modelled, Perth and Kinross retain 94p of every pound of existing visitor economy GVA, and the levy generates up to £9.75 million annually to reinvest. The economic trade-off is modest relative to the revenue raised. 6. Benefits of Reinvestment of Tourism Levy Revenue A visitor levy should be understood not only as a revenue-raising measure, but as a mechanism for reinvestment in Perth and Kinross’s visitor economy. The key policy benefit is that funds collected from overnight stays can be returned to the local area in ways that improve the quality, competitiveness and long-term sustainability of the Page 237 of 350
Page 238
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA destination. This briefing already notes that the current economic model does not include a reinvestment multiplier, meaning any positive effects from spending levy proceeds on infrastructure, marketing, events or visitor services are additional to the base economic impact already modelled. Using the £3 per night scenario, the model estimates net levy income of £5,849,100 per year. If that income is reinvested locally, the indicative spending impact suggests an additional £2.34 million to £2.81 million in GVA and support for around 101 to 107 jobs. These figures are not presented as guaranteed outcomes; rather, they provide a clear, easy-to-understand illustration of the scale of the possible economic return from reinvesting levy receipts into the sector. In practical terms, reinvestment could help to support a stronger visitor offer in Perth and Kinross by funding improvements such as destination marketing, event development, public realm enhancements, visitor information, wayfinding, sustainable transport links and other measures that improve the overall experience for residents and visitors alike. Over time, this type of targeted reinvestment can help to protect the destination’s competitiveness, encourage repeat visitation and strengthen the wider local economy. Additionally, it may be considered that regular reinvestment through Local Authority managed visitor levy funds may act as a catalyst for private investment as promotion and product development occurs. This means the levy should not be viewed simply as an added cost to visitors. If the income is transparently and strategically reinvested, it can become a tool for place improvement and economic renewal, helping to ensure that a modest contribution from overnight visitors supports the long-term attractiveness and resilience of Perth and Kinross Key Caveats to Note 1. Gross, not net, impact. The GVA and FTE figures are gross - they show employment and value sustained by visitor spending, not net new jobs that the levy itself creates. Standard additionality adjustments (deadweight, displacement, leakage) have not been applied. This is common practice for baseline economic impact studies but means the figures cannot be directly compared to net cost-benefit analyses. 2. No reinvestment multiplier. When the levy proceeds are spent on infrastructure, marketing or events, that spending would itself generate GVA and jobs - a beneficial second-round effect. The model does not capture this, so the net impact on the economy is likely more positive than shown once reinvestment is accounted for. 3. Flat volume assumption. The five-year projection assumes zero real growth in visitor numbers. If tourism grows (or declines), all figures scale proportionally. 4. Persons-per-unit set to 1. The model currently assumes one person per hotel room, self-catering unit, etc. If this is revised upward (e.g., families sharing a unit), the levy burden per person decreases and demand displacement would be lower. Page 238 of 350
Page 239
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA 5. No exemptions currently applied. VAT-exempt accommodation and individual exemption take-up are both set to zero. If the scheme introduces exemptions, levy revenues would fall accordingly. 6. The information in this report is based on sources we believe to be reliable. This does not warrant its completeness or accuracy. The findings and recommendations are based on circumstances existing at the time of preparation and may be subject to change. 7. It also does not apply HM Treasury additionality corrections, which would reduce the gross GVA figures somewhat. Conclusion This assessment demonstrates that the visitor economy is a significant and resilient component of the Perth and Kinross economy. Based on the available evidence, overnight tourism currently generates approximately £367 million in annual visitor expenditure and supports around 7,000 full-time equivalent jobs across accommodation, food and drink, retail, transport and visitor attractions. The modelling indicates that the introduction of a visitor levy would create a substantial and predictable revenue stream for reinvestment in the destination. Under the central scenario of a £3 nightly levy, the scheme is estimated to generate approximately £5.85 million in annual net proceeds, equivalent to almost £29.25 million over five years. These revenues could provide Perth and Kinross Council and local stakeholders with a long-term funding mechanism to support destination management, infrastructure, events, marketing, sustainability initiatives and wider visitor experience improvements. This analysis also demonstrates that the likely economic displacement effects associated with the levy are comparatively modest relative to the scale of revenue generated. Under the central modelling assumptions and based on the displacement factors generated for the Scottish Government, the reduction in Gross Value Added (GVA) is estimated at approximately 2%, while the wider visitor economy remains substantial and resilient. Even under the most pessimistic scenario tested, the area is projected to retain much of its existing tourism economic value. Importantly, the economic modelling presented in this report is intentionally conservative in one significant respect: it does not include the positive economic effects arising from the reinvestment of levy proceeds. Internationally, visitor levies are commonly justified on the basis that revenues are recycled back into the visitor economy to improve destination quality and support sustainable tourism growth. Indicative reinvestment modelling undertaken for this assessment suggests that reinvesting the annual proceeds from a £3 levy could support an additional £2.3 million to £2.8 million in GVA and sustain over 100 jobs in the local economy. While these figures are illustrative rather than predictive, they demonstrate the potential for Page 239 of 350
Page 240
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA reinvestment benefits to offset a proportion of the initial displacement effects associated with the levy. The findings therefore suggest that the policy question is not simply whether a visitor levy creates a marginal additional cost for visitors, but whether the long-term benefits generated through reinvestment outweigh those costs. The evidence presented here indicates that, if revenues are transparently managed and strategically invested, a visitor levy has the potential to strengthen Perth and Kinross’s tourism infrastructure, improve the visitor experience and support the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of the destination. As with all economic forecasting, the findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution. The modelling is based on a series of assumptions regarding visitor behaviour, price sensitivity and future market conditions, all of which may change over time. The analysis therefore provides a robust evidence-based estimate of likely impacts rather than a precise prediction of future outcomes. Overall, the evidence suggests that a visitor levy in Perth and Kinross represents a potential policy intervention capable of generating regular reinvestment funding while maintaining the strength and resilience of the region’s visitor economy. All data and calculations are drawn directly from the EIA Model (Filename 20260505_PKC_Visitor_Levy_EIA_Model.xlsx). Multipliers are sourced from Scottish Government I-O Tables 2022 (published 10 December 2025, www2.gov.scot/input-output). Elasticity assumptions are drawn from the Scottish Parliament Financial Memorandum to the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill (Source: https://www.parliament.scot/- /media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/visitor-levy-scotland-bill/introduced/financial- memorandum-accessible.pdf). Page 240 of 350
Page 241
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA Page 241 of 350
Page 242
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council| Visitor Levy EIA Page 242 of 350
Page 243
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council | Competitive Advantage of a Visitor Levy | May 2026 Competitive Advantage Analysis, Visitor Levy Implementation This document examines the competitive advantages a visitor levy can deliver for the Perth & Kinross Council region. Because no Scottish levy scheme had begun collecting revenue at the time of writing, this analysis draws entirely on evidence from comparable schemes already planned elsewhere in Scotland and schemes implemented internationally. The four themes covered: • visitor experience and product quality, • infrastructure and place improvement, • destination marketing and promotion, and • environmental sustainability These reflect areas highlighted within Perth and Kinross Council's Consultation and reflect areas of possible interest for this assessment. 1. The Comparator Destinations Before looking at each theme, it helps to briefly set out the comparator schemes this analysis draws on. Each has a different structure and scale, but all are relevant. Edinburgh agreed its full visitor levy spend plans in February 2026, committing over £90 million across three years ahead of the levy going live on 24 July 2026. At 5% of accommodation cost (capped at five nights), the scheme is projected to raise up to £50 million annually once established. Edinburgh's spend decisions provide a directly relevant Scottish benchmark, structured around the same themes this authority is considering. (Source: City of Edinburgh Council, edinburgh.gov.uk/visitorlevy, February 2026) Amsterdam has operated an accommodation levy since 2012, now set at 12.5%, raised progressively from 5% in 2018. The city projected collecting over €270 million in 2026 alone, reinvested across infrastructure, cultural life, and city operations. Despite consistent tax increases, Amsterdam remains one of Europe's most visited cities. (Source: Amsterdam Guide, guideamsterdam.org, March 2026; National Geographic, August 2024) New Zealand introduced its International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy (IVL) in 2019. Now set at NZ$100 per eligible international visitor (raised from NZ$35 in October 2024), it has funded a rolling programme of specific tourism and conservation projects documented in annual performance reports. (Source: MBIE, IVL Annual Performance Report 2023/24, mbie.govt.nz) Iceland reinstated its accommodation tax in January 2024 after suspending it during the pandemic, framing it explicitly around managing environmental pressures from tourism. International visitor numbers rose 2.2% from 2023 to 2024 and a further 3.5% in the 12 6 Page 243 of 350
Page 244
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council | Competitive Advantage of a Visitor Levy | May 2026 months to September 2025. (Source: Euronews Travel, euronews.com, October 2025; Statistics Iceland) 2. Visitor Experience and Product Quality The most direct competitive advantage a levy delivers is funding visible, tangible improvements to what visitor’s experience, things people notice, talk about, and factor into whether they return or recommend a destination. Amsterdam's deputy mayor has described the city's levy as enabling it to stay "clean, safe and attractive" for visitors and residents alike, covering everything from litter management and street cleaning to law enforcement in the city centre and investment in cultural facilities (Source: National Geographic, August 2024). The practical effect is that visitor-facing quality is protected even as the city absorbs millions of overnight stays each year. Edinburgh's agreed spend plans show a similar logic. The "Well-Kept City Fund" covers enhanced cleaning operations, bin replacement in busy areas, graffiti removal, upgraded public toilets, and a dedicated city centre policing unit in partnership with Police Scotland. Alongside that, the "Destination and Visitor Management" programme includes direct business support to improve accessibility, sustainability, and fair work standards in the visitor economy (Source: City of Edinburgh Council, February 2026). These are the operational fundamentals that underpin whether a visit is enjoyable or not. Research supports the connection between levy transparency and visitor acceptance. A study of international tourists in Istanbul found that 81% supported paying a tourist tax when it was specifically earmarked for improvements to their visit. The same and related research consistently finds that tourism demand is broadly inelastic to moderate price increases, visitors absorb a reasonable levy without changing travel plans, provided they can see what it's used for. (Source: Cetin et al., 2017, MDPI Economies 5(2); Göktaş and Çetin, 2023, European Journal of Tourism Research 35) For a mixed urban-rural destination, such as Perth & Kinross, this is a meaningful opportunity. Visitor experience spans town centres and rural settings, paths, parking areas, visitor facilities, public spaces. A levy creates a mechanism to fund quality improvements across the whole destination rather than leaving gaps where general budgets run short. 3. Infrastructure and Place Improvement Physical infrastructure, car parks, footpaths, public toilets, public realm, signage, transport links, is what visitor experiences rest on. It is also where visitor pressure accumulates fastest and where underfunding is most visible. New Zealand's IVL offers some of the clearest project-level evidence available. Since 2019, the levy has funded a car parking pilot at high-demand South Island visitor sites, track and hut maintenance across the national park estate, fencing and facilities at Page 244 of 350
Page 245
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council | Competitive Advantage of a Visitor Levy | May 2026 natural hotspots under visitor pressure, and the Tongariro Alpine Crossing Sustainable Management Project, a specific programme to manage one of New Zealand's most heavily visited walking routes. (Source: MBIE, IVL Annual Performance Report 2023/24) The common thread is that visitor pressure impacts infrastructure, and visitor levy income funds the repair and management. Edinburgh's levy spend includes a "City Transformation Fund" to renew and restore key areas of the city, covering public realm improvements at Cramond Foreshore and Portobello Promenade, restoration of historic sites, and works to town centre streets. (Source: City of Edinburgh Council, February 2026) These are the kinds of physical improvements that residents and visitors both use, and that shows whether a place is well cared for. Iceland's government reinstated its accommodation tax in 2024 explicitly to address infrastructure strain from a growth in tourism post-Covid. The revenue is investing airport expansion at Keflavik and environmental management across natural visitor sites. Visitor numbers have continued to grow since reinstatement, a reasonable indication that modest visitor charges, clearly linked to maintaining the destination, do not deter travel. (Source: Euronews Travel, October 2025) For rural tourism destinations, they routinely face visitor pressure on paths, parking, and natural sites that requires consistently available council budget. A ringfenced levy provides a targeted mechanism to address this directly. 4. Destination Marketing and Promotion A visitor levy can improve a destination's marketing position in two distinct ways. The first is directly funding marketing activity. The second is indirectly funding the product improvements that make marketing credible and repeatable. New Zealand levy allocations in 2023/24 of NZ$42 million was committed to Tourism New Zealand specifically to market the country as a visitor destination in international markets. (Source: MBIE, IVL Annual Performance Report 2023/24) This is an example of direct competitive advantage, levy revenue funding the country's marketing capability at a national scale. Edinburgh's Destination and Visitor Management programme includes activity to broaden awareness of the city's year-round offer, encouraging visitors to explore beyond the well- known attractions and to visit at different times of year. (Source: City of Edinburgh Council, February 2026) Addressing seasonality and geographic concentration are among the most persistent structural weaknesses in any destination visitor economy, and dedicated funding to tackle them is a direct competitive improvement. For a mixed urban-rural authority, the marketing opportunity is particularly relevant. A levy-funded marketing programme can promote a joined-up destination narrative, Page 245 of 350
Page 246
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council | Competitive Advantage of a Visitor Levy | May 2026 connecting town-centre attractions with rural, or landscape experiences, extending average length of stay and spreading visitor spend more evenly. It also gives accommodation businesses, event organisers and operators a stronger, evidenced story to tell that this authority is investing in its visitor offer and maintaining the quality of its destination. There is an additional reputational dimension worth noting. Destinations with transparent, governed levy schemes are increasingly seen within the travel trade as responsible and well-managed. As more Scottish and UK authorities introduce levies, early movers who can demonstrate effective deployment of funds will be better placed to attract investment and partnerships in the visitor economy. 5. Environmental Sustainability This is arguably the strongest area of long-term competitive advantage for a mixed urban- rural destination, particularly one with natural landscape assets that form part of the reason visitors come. New Zealand built this principle into its IVL from the outset, framing the levy as ensuring "visitors contribute to the unique natural heritage they enjoy." Funded projects include habitat protection, restoration of walking infrastructure at high-pressure natural sites, and conservation programmes for threatened species. (Source: MBIE, IVL Annual Performance Report 2023/24; discovernewzealand.com) The underlying logic is straightforward: if the natural environment attracts visitors, and visitors degrade that environment, then visitor income must fund its protection. Iceland applies the same reasoning at a national scale. The accommodation tax reinstated in January 2024 is explicitly framed around managing the environmental impact of the country's tourism boom, keeping Iceland "pristine," which is the quality that makes it competitive as a premium destination. (Source: Trippz, tourist tax guide; Euronews Travel, October 2025) Visitor numbers have not declined since the tax's reinstatement, which supports the view that environmentally motivated levies do not deter the visitors’ destinations most want to attract. Amsterdam's "Tourism in Balance" approach is also relevant. Levy revenue funds investment in regional infrastructure beyond the city centre, manages visitor flows, and supports conservation of the historic environment. The city has moved explicitly away from a volume-based tourism model towards one focused on quality, sustainability, and liveability. (Source: Amsterdam Guide, March 2026; Travel and Tour World, November 2025) For Perth & Kinross Council, the environmental sustainability argument connects directly to competitive position. Natural assets, countryside, rivers, hills, coastline, woodland, heritage sites, are often what differentiates smaller Scottish destinations from each other Page 246 of 350
Page 247
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council | Competitive Advantage of a Visitor Levy | May 2026 and from urban alternatives. A levy that helps fund active management and protection of those assets is an investment in the destination's own competitive differentiation. 6. Visitor Acceptance – Demand Effects The concern most raised by the accommodation sector is whether a levy will deter visitors and harm the local economy. The evidence from established schemes is mostly consistent on this point. Amsterdam has raised its tourist tax from 5% to 12.5% between 2018 and 2026, a substantial increase, and remains one of Europe's most visited cities, projecting over €270 million in levy income in 2026. (Source: National Geographic, August 2024; Amsterdam Guide, March 2026) Iceland reinstated its accommodation tax in January 2024. International visitor arrivals increased by 2.2% from 2023 to 2024, and by a further 3.5% in the 12 months to September 2025, growth that occurred despite the tax, the closure of budget airline Play, and a volcanic eruption. (Source: Statistics Iceland, via Euronews Travel, October 2025) Academic research broadly supports the view that a moderate, well-designed levy does not significantly suppress visitor demand. Tourism economists describe demand as "inelastic" to modest price increases, meaning that the cost of a levy is typically absorbed by visitors without materially changing their travel decisions, particularly when visiting a destination they have chosen for its specific qualities. (Source: Durán-Román et al., 2021; Cetin et al., 2017, MDPI Economies) The critical variable is transparency. Research shows that visitors are willing to pay, and less likely to feel aggrieved by paying, when they understand what the levy funds and can see evidence of it on the ground. This has direct implications for how any scheme is communicated, to visitors, to accommodation providers, and to the public. 7. Summary The competitive advantage of a visitor levy is not just the income it generates. It is the strategic position that income enables. Across the comparator destinations reviewed here, four consistent advantages emerge: A dedicated, ringfenced funding stream. Unlike general council budgets, visitor levy income is reserved for visitor-facing services and infrastructure. This means competitive improvements are funded without displacing other council priorities and are not subject to year-on-year budget uncertainty in the same way. Visible quality improvements. Investment in cleanliness, public safety, public realm, cultural assets and visitor facilities directly affects the quality of the experience. Destinations that invest visibly in quality tend to perform better on satisfaction, return visits and recommendation, the organic marketing that drives long-term competitiveness. Page 247 of 350
Page 248
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council | Competitive Advantage of a Visitor Levy | May 2026 Dedicated marketing and demand management. Levy-funded marketing can address structural weaknesses like seasonality and geographic concentration and can promote a broader destination narrative that benefits the whole area rather than concentrating visitors in a small number of locations. Protection of the natural and built environment. For a destination with rural and natural assets, this may be the most strategically significant advantage. Visitor pressure degrades the very assets visitors come to see. A levy provides a mechanism for active stewardship, funded partly by those who benefit from it. The evidence from Amsterdam, New Zealand and Iceland, all established schemes, suggests that these advantages are achievable without materially deterring visitors, provided the levy is moderate, well-governed and clearly communicated. Edinburgh's agreed spend plans for 2026 onwards reflect the same thinking, structured around the same four themes this authority is considering. Realising a competitive advantage from a levy requires clear deployment of funds and transparent communication about what they achieve. Where that has happened in comparable destinations, the outcomes have been positive. References • City of Edinburgh Council, Visitor Levy spend decisions, February 2026. Available at: edinburgh.gov.uk/visitorlevy • City of Edinburgh Council, "Council agrees first round of Edinburgh Visitor Levy spend," 12 February 2026. Available at: edinburgh.gov.uk • MBIE New Zealand, IVL Annual Performance Report 2023/24. Available at: mbie.govt.nz • National Geographic, "Do Europe's tourist taxes really work?", August 2024. Available at: nationalgeographic.com • Euronews Travel, "Iceland to propose higher tourist tax following record-breaking number of visitors", October 2025. Available at: euronews.com • Amsterdam Guide, "Understanding Amsterdam's Tourist Tax in 2026", March 2026. Available at: guideamsterdam.org • Cetin, G. et al. (2017). "Willingness to Pay for Tourist Tax in Destinations: Empirical Evidence from Istanbul." Economies, 5(2), MDPI. Available at: mdpi.com • Göktaş, L.S. and Çetin, G. (2023). "Tourist tax for sustainability: Determining willingness to pay." European Journal of Tourism Research, 35. Page 248 of 350
Page 249
Moffat Centre | Perth & Kinross Council | Competitive Advantage of a Visitor Levy | May 2026 • VisitScotland, "Guidance on the Visitor Levy for Local Authorities," October 2025. Available at: visitscotland.org • Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024. Available at: legislation.gov.uk Prepared: May 2026 Page 249 of 350
Page 250
Page 250 of 350
Page 251
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Perth and Kinross Council Date of Meeting: 17 June 2026 Report Title: Short-Term Let Control Area Designation Proposal Report Number: 26/176 Report Author: Stephanie Durning, Planning & Policy Officer, Housing Strategy Organisational Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to present the outcome of the statutory consultation on the proposed designation of a Short-Term Let (STL) Control Area covering Highland Perthshire and the northern part of the Eastern Housing Market Areas of Perth and Kinross, and to set out the remaining statutory steps required to establish the Control Area. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Context 4. Proposals 5. Statutory Process 6. Conclusion 7. Impact Value Assessment 8. Appendices 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Council: 2.1 Notes the contents of the report and the Statutory Consultation Report (Appendix 2). 7 Page 251 of 350
Page 252
2.2 Approves the designation of a Short-Term Let (SLT) Control Area covering Highland Perthshire and northern part of the Eastern housing market areas as per map provided in Appendix 4. 2.3 Asks the Strategic Lead, Economy, Development and Planning to progress the remaining statutory steps to formally designate the Control Area. 3. Background 3.1 At its meeting on 7 May 2025 (Appendix 1), the Council approved the commencement of the statutory process to establish a Short-Term Let (STL) Control Area covering Highland Perthshire and the northern part of the Eastern Housing Market Areas. Previous report included consideration of a range of options for managing short-term lets, concluding that maintaining the status quo would not provide sufficient planning control, while a Council-wide approach would be disproportionate given varying local pressures. A targeted Control Area has been identified as the preferred and proportionate option, enabling improved oversight of future STL growth in high-pressure areas while balancing housing needs and the visitor economy. 3.2 The statutory process comprises four main stages. The following stages have now been completed: • Publication of a notice of intention to designate a Control Area, including a Statement of Reasons (Appendix 3) and a map of the proposed area (Appendix 4). • Provision of a minimum 28-day period for public representations. 3.3 Subject to approval of the recommendation in this report, the remaining stages are: • Submission of the Statement of Reasons and final map to Scottish Ministers for approval. • If approved, publication of the designation, including a minimum 28-day notice period and confirmation of the date on which the Control Area will come into effect, together with the finalised map. 3.4 The introduction of a Short-Term Let (STL) Control Area would require planning permission for any change of use from a residential dwelling to a short-term let. This enables the Council to assess proposals against relevant planning considerations, including the impact on local amenity and the character of the area, as well as the loss of residential accommodation, in line with National Planning Framework 4 and other material planning considerations. 3.5 For clarity, planning permission is already required for the change of use of a residential flat to a short-term let. The designation of a Control Area would extend this requirement to all residential dwellings. Page 252 of 350
Page 253
3.6 Since the introduction of STL Control Area legislation, two control areas have been established in Scotland: one covering the City of Edinburgh Council area (September 2022) and one covering the Badenoch and Strathspey ward of Highland Council (March 2024). Fife Council undertook consultation on the potential introduction of a Control Area in 2025 and is currently exploring the feasibility of designating areas within St Andrews and the East Neuk. Highland Council 3.7 Consideration has been given to the Highland Council Short-Term Let (STL) Control Area as a comparator more closely aligned to the geographic and market context of Perth and Kinross than that of the City of Edinburgh. Highland Council has recently reviewed the operation of the Control Area within the Badenoch and Strathspey ward. This review identified that 43 applications for change of use to short-term let were refused, representing approximately 13% of applications. This demonstrates that the designation of a Control Area does not constitute a blanket restriction on short-term lets, but instead provides a framework for assessed, case-by-case decision-making based on local circumstances. 3.8 Highland Council is now progressing proposals to extend STL Control Area designation to a wider area, potentially covering up to 80% of the Council area, including Inverness. While such developments provide useful contextual information, the approach taken by other local authorities does not determine the decision for Perth and Kinross Council, which must be based on its own evidence base and local circumstances. STL Licences 3.9 The number of Short-Term Let (STL) licences in Perth and Kinross continues to increase. Table 2 below provides an overview of the total number of licences and the rate of growth between 1 October 2023 and 14 April 2026. Table 2: Distribution of secondary STLs across Housing Market Areas and growth rate (1 October 2023 to14 April 2026). 3.10 As of April 2026, there were a total of 1,767 secondary STL licences across Perth and Kinross. This represents an overall increase of approximately 37% since the statutory deadline for the registration of existing STLs on 1 October 2023. Growth patterns vary across Housing Market Areas: - In the Highland Housing Market Area, licence numbers have increased by approximately 24% over the period. Housing Market Area Eastern Greater Perth Highland Kinross Strathearn P&K Total STLs 293 321 815 58 280 1767 63% 45% 24% 41% 50% 37%Growth rate Page 253 of 350
Page 254
Although the rate of growth has slowed, it remains significant. A total of 23 licences (3%) has been surrendered since the scheme was introduced. - In the Eastern Housing Market Area, growth has been higher at approximately 63%, with the northern part of this area included in the proposed Control Area. 3.11 Between 5 November 2021 and 16 March 2026, the Council received a total of 155 planning applications for short-term lets within the wards comprising the proposed Control Area, equating to an average of approximately 31 applications per year. Of these, 37 applications related to Certificates of Lawful Use, where properties had operated as short-term lets for more than 10 years. The number of planning applications is significantly lower than the number of licensed short-term lets. This indicates that a substantial proportion of properties currently operating as STLs do not require planning permission under the existing framework. The introduction of a Control Area would therefore increase the number of short-term lets subject to planning control. Properties with existing planning permission, a Certificate of Lawfulness, or confirmation that planning permission is not required would not be affected by the designation. Wards in proposed Control Area Applications Approved Applications Refused Returned / Withdrawn Awaiting Decision Certificate of Lawfulness Ward 3 Blairgowrie 17 1 6 0 6 Ward 4 Highland 43 10 32 4 26 Ward 5 Strathtay 23 5 14 0 5 Table 3: Planning applications relating to STLs by ward (November 2021 – March 2026). 4. Proposals 4.1 The evidence set out in this report and supporting appendices (Appendix 5) demonstrates a sustained and spatially uneven increase in short-term let (STL) provision across Perth and Kinross, with the most significant growth occurring in Highland Perthshire and the northern part of the Eastern Housing Market Area. This growth is occurring in areas already experiencing housing pressure, constrained land supply, and challenges in supporting local services and workforce retention. In the absence of further intervention, it is expected that these trends will continue, resulting in an incremental loss of residential accommodation, increasing pressure on local communities, and reduced ability for the planning authority to manage cumulative impacts. Page 254 of 350
Page 255
4.2 The Council recognises the important contribution of the STL sector to the local economy and tourism offer. The proposal does not seek to restrict this activity but to ensure that it is considered alongside housing need and residential amenity. Evidence from comparable areas indicates that the majority of applications for change of use to STL continue to be approved where impacts are acceptable, demonstrating that a Control Area supports managed growth rather than constraint. 4.3 Implementation and Monitoring If approved, the designation of a Control Area will: - Require planning permission for new changes of use from residential dwellings to STLs within the designated area - Enable assessment against the Development Plan, including considerations of amenity, character, housing availability and cumulative impact - Increase the number of applications subject to planning assessment, reflecting the current gap between STL licensing and planning control The Council will monitor the operation of the Control Area, including application volumes, decision outcomes, and housing and tourism indicators, to inform any future review of the designation. 4.4 The designation of a Short-Term Let Control Area should be considered as one element of a broader package of interventions being progressed by the Council to address housing pressure and support sustainable communities. This includes measures such as the implementation of the Council Tax premium on second homes, ongoing work to bring empty homes back into use, and investment in the delivery of new affordable and rural housing. The Control Area complements these actions by focusing specifically on managing future changes of use within the planning system, ensuring a more balanced approach to housing availability, economic growth, and community sustainability rather than relying on a single intervention. Consultation Report 4.5 The proposal was subject to an 8-week statutory consultation, which ran from 28 October to 22 December 2025. The full consultation report is provided at Appendix 2. 4.6 Responses were primarily collected through the PKC online consultation hub, with an option for submissions via email. In addition to issuing the statutory notice and directly notifying Community Councils, the consultation was promoted through a press release and PKC’s social media and LinkedIn channels. Targeted engagement was also undertaken, including direct communication with tourism associations and partnerships, promotion through PKC business networks, and direct contact with the Association of Scottish Self-Caterers. Page 255 of 350
Page 256
4.7 A total of 214 responses were received. The key findings from the consultation are summarised below: - 70% of respondents (150) either lived in or represented interests within the proposed control area. - Overall support for the proposal was 76%, increasing to 86% among respondents within the proposed control area. - The majority of respondents were residents, representing 87% of all responses and 85% of those from within the proposed control area. - Resident respondents were largely supportive, with 81% (152) in favour of the proposal. - The highest level of support was from residents within the proposed control area, with 84% (107 responses) supporting the proposal. - Businesses and service providers accounted for a relatively small proportion of responses—9% (18) overall and 10% (15) within the proposed control area. - Business responses were, on balance, not supportive of the proposal: 55% (10) opposed, 28% (5) supported, and 17% (3) were undecided. - The majority of business responses (83%) were from short-term let (STL) operators. - Six organisational responses were received, five of which related to the proposed control area; 67% supported the proposal, while 33% did not. 4.8 Feedback on the reasons for supporting or opposing the proposal was gathered in two ways: through selection of predefined statements (informed by the 2023 consultation), and through the provision of open-text comments. 4.9 The principal reason selected in support of the proposal from the predefined statements was: There are too many short-term lets (STLs) in the proposed Control Area, impacting the availability of homes, and the proposal would enable the Council to exercise greater control over the loss of residential properties to new STLs. 4.10 The main themes emerging from open comments in support of the proposal included: The need to improve access to affordable housing, particularly for single- person households, young families, key local workers, and those seeking to downsize, with STLs perceived as adding pressure to the housing system. 4.11 The primary reason selected from the predefined statements for opposing the proposal was: Concerns that additional controls on STLs could have a negative impact on tourism. Page 256 of 350
Page 257
4.12 The key theme arising from open comments in opposition to the proposal was: The view that the Council should instead prioritise and invest in the delivery of additional affordable housing. 4.13 A wide range of views were expressed both in support of and in opposition to the proposal; these are set out in full within the Consultation Report at Appendix 2. However, the statutory consultation demonstrated overall support for the proposal. 5. Statutory Process 5.1 The Council initiated the statutory process by publishing a Notice of Intent to designate a Short-Term Let (STL) Control Area covering Highland Perthshire and the northern part of the Eastern Housing Market Areas of Perth and Kinross. A period of 55 days was provided for representations to be submitted to the Council. The outcomes of this consultation are set out in Appendix 2. 5.2 The remaining stages in the statutory process are as follows: - Submission to Scottish Ministers of the Statement of Reasons, supporting evidence, and a map of the proposed designated area. - Subject to approval by Scottish Ministers, publication of the Notice of Designation, including the date on which the Control Area will come into effect, alongside the finalised map. A minimum notice period of 28 days is required. 5.3 Taking into account the time required for Scottish Ministers to reach a decision, and assuming no legal challenge is received, it is estimated that the Control Area could be formally established by 1 January 2027. 6. Conclusion 6.1 The proposed Short-Term Let (STL) Control Area would introduce a requirement for planning permission for all residential dwellings intended for use as STLs. While such permission is already required for flats, extending this requirement would enable the Council to assess the cumulative impact of STLs on residential amenity and housing availability across the designated area. 6.2 The designation cannot be applied retrospectively; therefore, existing STLs which are operating lawfully will not be affected by the proposal. 6.3 The statutory consultation demonstrated overall support for the proposal. Updated analysis of STL licensing data indicates that growth in new licences since October 2023 has been significant. Introducing a requirement for planning permission would enable a more balanced approach to managing further growth, particularly in areas with high concentrations of STLs or where residential amenity may be adversely affected. Page 257 of 350
Page 258
The proposal does not constitute a blanket restriction on STLs within the Control Area. Evidence from Highland Council’s initial STL Control Area suggests that the majority of planning applications for change of use to STL are approved. 6.4 The next step is to submit the proposed STL Control Area—covering the Highland Perthshire Housing Market Area and the northern part of the Eastern Housing Market Area—to Scottish Ministers for approval. Subject to Ministerial consideration and no legal challenge, it is anticipated that the Control Area could be established by January 2027. 6.5 Taken together, the evidence base, consultation findings and wider strategic interventions demonstrate that the proposed Control Area represents a necessary, proportionate and balanced response to managing housing pressure and supporting sustainable communities. 7. Impact Value Assessment Impact and Value Assessment 8. Appendices 8.1 Appendix 1 - Short-Term Let Control Area Council Report 7 May 25 Appendix 2 - Short-Term Let Control Area Statutory Consultation Report Appendix 3 - Statement of Reasons Appendix 4 - Map of proposed Control Area Appendix 5 - Evidence Report Page 258 of 350
Page 259
Appendix 1 Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Perth and Kinross Council Date of Meeting: 7 May 2025 Report Title: Short Term Let Control Area Report Number: 25/114 Report Author: Kevin Divin, Team Leader - Housing Strategy Organisational Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 This report seeks approval to commence the formal statutory process to introduce a Short Term Let (STL) Control Area for Highland Perthshire and northern part of the Eastern housing market areas. 1.2 This report is structured over the following sections: 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Context 4. Proposals 5. Statutory Process 6. Conclusion 7. Impact Value Assessment 8. Appendices 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Council: 2.1 Agree to proceed with the notice of a proposal for the designation of a Short Term Let Control Area for Highland Perthshire and northern part of the Eastern housing market areas. 7 Page 259 of 350
Page 260
3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Government and local authorities have recognised the need to manage the number of commercial STLs to protect both the supply of homes to meet local housing need (including key workers) and the amenity of residential areas. STL Control Area legislation was introduced in April 2021, permitting local authorities, as the planning authority, to establish Control Areas. Within Control Areas, planning permission is required for the change of use of dwellinghouses to STL ‘to allow consideration of impacts on the availability of residential housing’. 3.2 For clarification, planning permission has always been required to change the use of a residential flat to a STL. Since the introduction of this legislation, two such Control Areas have been established in Scotland: across the entire City of Edinburgh Council area (Sept 2022) and the Badenoch & Strathspey ward of the Highland Council area (March 2024). 3.3 The Local Housing Strategy (2022-2027) identified a reduced housing supply and affordability concerns of communities, particularly in rural areas, resulting in an action to consider the feasibility of a Control Area (Action 1.7.LHS_2022- 27_Action_Plan.pdf (pkc.gov.uk) along with other actions. 3.4 The Environment, Infrastructure & Economic Development Committee of 31 May 2023 Short Term Let Control Area: Proposals for Consultation - Report No. 23/171 refers) approved the undertaking of public consultation on the principle and agreed the potential boundary of a STL Control Area, with an instruction to officers to report on the results and to provide additional analysis based on applications for STL licences. The consultation was completed in August 2023; however, the Scottish Government extended the deadline for submission of licence applications by existing operators to 30 September 2023, resulting in a delay in completion of the analysis to late spring 2024. The consultation exercise in 2023 received 333 responses from residents (224), business owners (95), and various organisations, both community and trade (14). Of the respondents, 53% agreed with the proposal to designate an STL Control Area with 41% disagreeing and 6% having no strong opinion either way. In general, responses from within the proposed Control Area were more strongly in favour of the principle, at 76% of residents and 57% of organisations. However, businesses were generally not supportive with 69% against the principle. Further detail is included in appendix 2. 3.5 A Non-statutory planning guidance: Change of Use of Residential Property to Short-term Let was approved by the Environment, Infrastructure & Economic Development Committee on 1 November 2023 (Report No 23/289 refers) to inform planning considerations for change of use of residential dwellings to short-term lets across the entire Council area. Page 260 of 350
Page 261
3.6 The Economy and Infrastructure Committee on 28 August 2024 (Report ref: 24/235) noted the contents of the report and rejected the recommendations to proceed with the designation of a SLT Control Area for Highland Perthshire and northern part of the Eastern housing market areas. Officers were asked to reconsider the planning considerations. 3.7 Since the public consultation and analysis, the number of STL licences has grown. By 19th February 2025, the STL Licence scheme had granted a total of 1699 licences for STLs. The majority (49%) are in Highland Housing Market Area (HMA), 18% are in Greater Perth HMA, 15% in both Eastern and Strathearn and 3% in Kinross HMAs. A distribution map is included in the Evidence Paper attached as appendix 1. The distribution has remained very similar to when the map was created at the close of the licence registry to existing STLs, but the detail is highlighted in tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1: Distribution of secondary STLs across Housing Market Areas at 19th February 2025. 3.8 Existing STLs had to apply for licence registration by 30 September 2023. Since then, the growth in the number of new licences has been significant at 32% across all areas. The table below outlines the growth rates across Housing Market Areas. The most growth has been in Eastern HMA at 44%. Table 2: Growth rate of secondary STLs across Housing Market Areas at Oct 2023- Feb 2025. 3.9 The STL sector growth indicates that the demand in the tourism sector is recovering (Appendix 1) and that the STL sector has a role to play. The Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers commissioned Biggar Economics to assess the economic impact generated by STLs across Scotland. The analysis published in December 2024 builds on the consultancy’s previous work on the impact of the STL sector on Edinburgh’s economy. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that the economic impact generated by the STL sector in Perth and Kinross is £51.8m GVA and 1,757 jobs in 2023. Page 261 of 350
Page 262
3.10 The number of planning applications that have been received by the council to 18 March 2025 from wards in the proposed control area totals 153. It is the equivalent of less than 38 per year since the monitoring of STL applications which started in 2021 (table 3). The number of permissions being sought is clearly well below the number of licences for STLs, indicating that there is a number of the STLs that do not require planning permission under the current system. Table 3: Numbers of planning applications relating to STLs since 2021- March 2025 by Ward. 4. Proposals 4.1 Currently, planning permission is only required for the use of a property as an STL if a material change of use occurs. A change from a flat to a STL is always considered to be a material change of use requiring planning permission. For dwellinghouses, the significance of the change must be considered, but planning permission is not required in many instances. When a change of use from dwellinghouse to STL is proposed, it is first necessary to assess whether or not residential amenity will be protected. Consideration must be given to any change to local amenity, the impact on the character of a neighbourhood or area, considerations on public and private safety and the impact on immediate neighbours. The following elements that would be associated with a STL would have to be taken account of to verify the impact on residential amenity:- (a) Guest arrivals and departures procedures; (b) Particular impacts on other residents in flatted buildings; (c) Likely frequency and intensity of noise or otherwise unsociable behaviour; (d) Impact on public services and residents' amenity; (e) Cumulative impact on the character and amenity of a neighbourhood; (f) Number of people the property can accommodate. 4.2 The designation of an STL Control Area would clarify the planning status of dwellinghouses used for secondary letting. This is defined as being where the owner/host does not reside at the property and thus allow appropriate regulatory oversight to balance the needs and concerns of the community as well as the potential impact on established residential amenity. If introduced, dwellinghouses within the Control Area would always require planning permission in order to operate as STLs. Page 262 of 350
Page 263
Once a planning application is submitted, the planning authority would assess the potential cumulative impact of the STL on the residential amenity and character of the local area, using the following key considerations: 1. Where is the proposal located? Is it: a. Within the city centre or a town centre (as identified in the LDP) where there would be no adverse impact on amenity or character of the area? b. Within an identified settlement (as identified in the LDP) and located in an area where there is a mix of other uses which could already affect residential amenity? c. Within a predominantly residential area and there could be adverse impact on amenity for existing residents, particularly in blocks with shared / communal entry? 2. Does the proposal relate to a residential property with four or more bedrooms, and will there be no adverse impact on local amenity from noise or disturbance if the let is occupied by a group or more than one family? 3. Is the proposal for the extensive refurbishment a long-term empty property? 4. Will there be no unacceptable impact from the proposal on local amenity or the character of the area? 5. Is the proposal part of a diversification scheme to support an existing Perth & Kinross rural business in line with NPF4 Policy 29: Rural Development and Local Development Plan Policy 8: Rural Business and Diversification? 6. Is there anything which demonstrates that the loss of the residential accommodation will be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal to the local economy? 4.3 It must be noted that the Control Area requirements would not be retrospective, therefore would not apply where the change of use to STL occurred prior to the Control Area coming into effect. For those changes of use occurring before the Control Area comes into force, the current position set out in 4.1 applies. If a dwellinghouse has been used for STL in a continual manner for more than 10 years, with no planning permission having expressly been granted, it may be appropriate for the owner to seek a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development in order to continue operating it as such. 4.4 The use of buildings such as huts, caravans, agricultural buildings, bothies or ancillary residential annexes as STLs would not be affected by the establishment of a Control Area. Page 263 of 350
Page 264
These changes of use require planning permission under current planning legislation regardless of a Control Area designation, as do the erection of buildings specifically for STL or holiday lets. In both instances, there would still also be a need for an appropriate STL licence. 4.5 The proposed STL Control Area would: • Allow the Council as planning authority to consider the best use of residential properties in defined areas of higher concentrations of STLs in areas of higher housing pressure, along with other relevant planning matters such as character and amenity. • Assist the Council in managing sustainable tourism development by aligning the planning requirements for STLs with other forms of tourism accommodation. • Clarify to the tourism industry the assessment to be used for proposals of new STLs. • Create clarity around when planning permission is required for a change of use by requiring it in all circumstances • Create parity across all forms of secondary STLs (currently only flatted dwellings, are explicitly required to gain planning permission). • Control any potential displacement impacts from the adjacent Badenoch and Strathspey STL Control Area in the Highland Council area. 4.6 In the table below, the outcomes of the STL Control Area if implemented on properties of different status are listed: Property Status STL Control Area Impact Use of flat as STL No change as planning permission is already required to do this Use of non-residential buildings (e.g. agricultural or commercial building) as STL No change as planning permission is already required to do this Proposal for new build holiday accommodation including huts, caravans, chalets, etc No change as planning permission is already required to do this Use of dwellinghouses as STL licence for more than 10 years, but no planning permission in place No change, the STL Control Area requirements would not be retrospective Use of dwellinghouses as STL licence less than 10 years, but no planning permission in place No change, the STL Control Area requirements would not be retrospective. The owner could apply for Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development to regularise the STL use Use as a dwellinghouse as STL and the change of use occurs after the STL Control Area comes into force Change – this would require planning permission which will be assessed against the Development Plan and the criteria set out in paras 4.1 to 4.4 above Table 4: Impacts by property status if STL Control Area is implemented. Page 264 of 350
Page 265
4.7 For clarification, the designation of an STL Control Area would not negate the need for a STL Licence. 5. Statutory Process 5.1 Should Council agree to the recommendation to establish a STL Control Area, a statutory process is required to be followed. This requires the following steps to be undertaken: 1. Publish a public notification of the intention to designate a Control Area, including a statement of reasons (appendix 3 and with the updated information from this report) and a map of the proposed Control Area (appendix 4). A minimum period of 28 days will be given for public representations to be made. 2. A further report will be brought to Council on the representations received through the public notification procedure to consider whether any modifications are required to the proposed STL control area. 3. With or without modifications, the STL control area would then be submitted to the Scottish Ministers for approval. 6. Conclusion 6.1 The proposed STL Control Area will introduce the requirement for planning permission to be sought for dwellinghouses that are to be used as STLs. By applying for planning permission, it will allow the Council the opportunity to consider the impact of residential character and amenity, and loss of residential accommodation. 6.2 It will ensure uniformity across all forms of secondary STLs as currently only flatted dwellings, are required to apply for planning permission. The Control Area will provide certainty on when planning permission is necessary to use a residential property as a STL. 6.3 It is therefore recommended that the Council proceeds with the notice of a proposal for the designation of a Short Term Let Control Area for Highland Perthshire and northern part of the Eastern housing market areas 7. Impact Value Assessment https://www.pkc.gov.uk/media/53918/Short-Term-Let-Control-Area- Proposal/pdf/Short_Term_Let_Control_- _Area_Proposal.pdf?m=1743950262720 EDMS_Communities Committee - EFIA - STLCA May 2025 Full Council Report.pdf - Open Content Page 265 of 350
Page 266
8. Appendices 8.1 Appendix 1 – Short-term Lets Evidence Paper 8.2 Appendix 2 – Consultation Results 8.3 Appendix 3 – Statement of Reasons 8.4 Appendix 4 – Map of Proposed Control Area Page 266 of 350
Page 267
1 Appendix 2 STATUTORY CONSULTATION 2025 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Individual consultation responses are available to elected members upon request. Introduction 1. Format of Consultation This formal, statutory consultation sought views on the proposal to designate a single Short-term Let Control Area covering Highland Perthshire and northern parts of Eastern Perthshire. Background This second consultation built on the earlier, broader consultation in the summer of 2023 which asked for views on the principle and boundary of a Short-term Let Control area, as well as non-statutory planning policy to support decisions on Short- Term Lets (STLs). The non-statutory guidance was introduced after agreement of the November 2023 Environment & Infrastructure Committee. In this formal, statutory consultation, feedback was sought in two ways. 1) a set of statements was offered to select from – informed by common themes identified in the 2023 consultation 2) open comments This strategy was adopted to encourage participation by aiding quick, focussed responses as well as aiding those who wished to leave more detailed responses To enable conclusions to be drawn on the responses from different interest groups, questions were asked of the respondents regarding their interests: • Resident, Business/Service, Organisation, Other interest • Type of Business/Service • Whether they lived in or represented interests in the proposed control area. Consultation Promotion In addition to the statutory requirements of publishing a notice in a local newspaper, publishing a notice on the Council’s website, and direct notification to Community Councils, it was also advertised widely through social media and Linked-in. Hard copy versions of the proposal and supporting documents were made available at the Council Offices in Perth and at 3 locations within the proposed control area (Pitlochry and Breadalbane Libraries and Kirkmichael Village shop). Tourism associations and partnerships were emailed directly, and the consultation was promoted through PKC 7 Page 267 of 350
Page 268
2 business networks. The Association of Scottish Self-Caterers were contacted directly and they provided a response. 2. Respondents There were 214 respondents in total from 187 residents, 18 businesses, 6 organisations and 3 with other interests (Chart 1 below). Chart 1- Respondents • Majority of responses were from residents • Only 9% of respondents were from businesses/services *rounded Chart/Table 1: Respondent categories to the consultation. The majority of respondents, 70%, lived in or represented interests in the proposed control area, Chart 2 below. Chart 2- Control Area respondents • 70% of all responses were from residents/ businesses/ services within or representing interests the proposed control area TOTAL 214 100%* Residents 187 87% Business 18 8% Organisations 6 3% Any other interest 3 1% Control Area 150 70% Outside Control Area 64 30% TOTAL 214 100% 70% 30% RESPONDENTS Control Area outside Control area 87% 8% 3% 1% RESPONDENTS Residents Business Organisations Any other interest Page 268 of 350
Page 269
3 Chart/Table 2: Respondent by proposed Control Area The proportion of respondents from within the proposed control area was similar to the overall proportion of respondents to the consultation itself, with 85% from residents, 10% from businesses, 3% from organisations and 2% from other interests, namely visitors or a friend of a resident (Chart 3 below). Chart 3- Control Area respondent breakdown • The spread of responses by category were fairly similar to the distribution of overall responses Chart/Table 3: Respondent categories by proposed Control Area. Of the 18 business responses, 12 were from STLs in the proposed control area. 2 were from a non-STL accommodation and a food and drink business, and 1 was from a service provider. Of the 6 organisations that responded, 5 represented interests within the proposed control area (Chart 4 below). The relatively low number of business/service responses was despite undertaking more to promote the consultation than the statutory requirement. Tourism associations and partnerships were emailed directly, and the consultation was promoted through PKC business networks. The Association of Scottish Self-Caterers were contacted directly, and they provided a response representing their membership. Residents 127 85% Business 15 10% Organisations 5 3% Other 3 2% Total 150 100% 85% 10% 3%2% RESPONDENT BY CONTROL AREA Residents Business Orgs Other Page 269 of 350
Page 270
4 Chart 4 – Business respondent breakdown • The majority of business/service responses were from STLs, 12 of those were from the control area Chart/Table 4: Business/service types. 3. Results Headline Chart 5 - Headline results The majority of responses, 76%, were in support of the proposal, 21% were not in support of the proposal and 3% were undecided (Chart 5). Similar levels of support for the proposal, 78%, were from those that either lived in or represented interests in the proposed control area (Chart 7 below). In the proposed control area, the majority of responses were from residents (Chart 3 above). The majority of business respondents whether within or outwith the proposed Control Area were not in support of the proposal with 53% of respondents from outwith the proposed control Area, and 55% from within (Charts 10 & 11 below). STL 15 83% Food & drink 1 5.6% Service providers 1 5.6% Accommodation (non STL) 1 5.6% Total 18 100% 83% 5%6%5.6% TYPE OF BUSINESS STL Food & drink Service providers Accommodation (non STL) 76% 21% 3% RESPONSES Agree Disagree Undecided Page 270 of 350
Page 271
5 Approximately one-third of business/services were supportive of the proposal whether within (34%) or outwith (28%) the proposed Control Area (Charts 10 & 11 below). Results Detail and Reasons The majority of responses overall, 76%, were in support of the proposal 21% were not in support of the proposal and 3% were undecided. (Chart 6 below). Chart 6 - Overall responses Table 5: Overall responses. Similar levels of support came from those that either lived in or represented interests in the proposed Control Area. Chart 7 - Control Area responses • 78% were in support of the proposal, 19% were not in support and, 3% were undecided (Chart 7 above). Agree 163 76% Disagree 44 21% Undecided 7 3% Total 214 100% Agree 117 78% Disagree 28 19% Undecided 5 3% Total 150 100% 76% 21% 3% RESPONSES Agree Disagree Undecided 78% 19% 3% CONTROL AREA RESPONSES Agree Disagree Undecided Page 271 of 350
Page 272
6 Chart7: Control area responses. Table 6: Control area responses. Reasons Respondents were offered to select from a series of statements that reflected common themes raised in the earlier consultation instead of or in addition to leaving open comments. The statement options offered to respondents who expressed support for the proposal were:- Support 1. There are too many STLs in the proposed Control Area and they’re impacting the availability of homes. It will give the Council the opportunity to have more control over the loss of homes to new STLs within the Control Area 2. The Council should use all the tools at its disposal to support the numbers of homes locally 3 It will slow the growth of new STLs 4 It will allow the Council the opportunity to have more control over any detrimental impact on amenity and character of a neighbourhood within the Control Area 5 It will make it clearer as to when planning permission is or isn’t required for a short-term let, in the Control Area 6 It is fairer that all new tourism accommodation (purpose-built / conversion / change of use) in the Control Area will be treated the same way in the requirement for planning permission It is fairer that all new tourism accommodation (purpose-built / conversion / change of use) in the Control Area will be treated the same way in the requirement for planning permission Nb. Respondents were able to select multiples Results Statements selected in support of the proposal 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not answered Total 144 116 94 119 85 98 49 705 20.4% 16.5% 13.3% 16.9% 12.1% 13.9% 7.0% 100.00% Page 272 of 350
Page 273
7 Table 7: Overall summary of statements selected in support of the proposal. The most common statement selected in support of the proposal was • There are too many STLs in the proposed Control Area and they’re impacting the availability of homes. It will give the Council the opportunity to have more control over the loss of homes to new STLs within the Control Area? The main reason for supporting the proposal from the additional open comments can be summarised as: • The need for affordable housing for single person households, young families, downsizers, housing for local workers in key services - STL accommodation puts further pressure on the system Not in support Statement options offered to respondents that expressed that they were not in support of the proposal and also still allowing for open comments were: 1 The numbers of short-term lets are not impacting the availability of homes in the proposed Control Area 2 Controlling which new short-term lets in the Control Area get planning permission will not significantly improve the affordability of homes in the area 3 There is not sufficient impact on amenity or character of neighbourhoods to necessitate the introduction of a Control Area 4 There should not be more costs and controls on tourism businesses 5 Controls on STLs could negatively impact tourism 6 The Council should use other tools at its disposal to support the numbers of homes locally 7 STL Control Area might discourage second-home owners from considering short-term letting Nb. Respondents were able to select multiples Results Statements selected not in support of the proposal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not answered Total 26 30 20 28 33 30 19 171 357 7.3% 8.4% 5.6% 7.8% 9.2% 8.4% 5.3% 47.9% 100% Table 8: Overall summary of statements selected not in support of the proposal. The most common statement selected for not supporting the proposal was • Controls on STLs could negatively impact tourism Page 273 of 350
Page 274
8 The most common reasons given in the additional open comments that were not in support of the proposal were equally split between two comments summarised as: • The Council should fund the building of more affordable homes • That in very rural locations where there is a lack of amenities- it can be difficult to sell property and STLs enables more sales (The settlements of Ballintuim, and Glenlyon were specifically referred to) An open comment box only was offered to those who were undecided on the proposal. The reasons given were varied but could be summarised as: • It was unclear how the policy would work to affect the individuals’ situation. Results breakdown by respondent category Residents The responses from residents mirrored the main results with 81% of resident responses in support of the proposal, Chart 8 below). 17% not in support and 2% undecided (Chart 8 below) A slightly higher majority of residents 84% in the proposed control area supported the proposal, whilst 14% were not in support and 2% were undecided (Chart 9 below). Chart 8 - Overall residents Chart 9 – Control Area resident Chart 8: Overall resident responses Chart 9: Control Area resident responses. Agree 152 81% Disagree 31 17% Undecided 4 2% Total 187 100% Agree 107 84% Disagree 17 14% Undecided 3 2% Total 127 100% 84% 14% 2% RESIDENT (CA) agree disagree undecided 81% 17% 2% RESIDENTS agree disagree undecided Page 274 of 350
Page 275
9 Table 9: Overall resident responses. Table 10: Control Area resident responses Reasons As residents were the largest respondent group, the reasons given for supporting or not supporting the proposal are reflected in the overall reasons outlined above. There was a greater variety of reasons made in the open comments that were not in support of the proposal from those out with the proposed Control Area, so in addition to those above were • Better STLs than empty properties • Focus should be on addressing empty homes and second homes • The proposal is unlikely to have any real impact on housing shortages in Perth and Kinross • Concerns that restricting STLs raise prices, will harm tourism, and damage the local economy Business Of business/service responses overall, 28% were in support but the majority 55%, were not in support of the proposal. 17% were undecided (Chart 10 below) Page 275 of 350
Page 276
10 Chart 10-Business/service overall Chart 11- Business/service Control Area Chart 10: Business/service responses overall Chart 11: Control Area resident responses Table 11: Overall resident responses Table 12: Control Area resident responses More Business/service responses from within the proposed Control area, 34%, were in support of the proposal. The majority, 53%, did not support the proposal and 13% were undecided (Chart 11 below). Only 9% of respondents overall were from businesses/services (18), 10% from within the proposed control area (15). Reasons Statements selected that were not in support of the proposal were • There should not be more costs and controls on tourism businesses. With additional reasoning given:- • Negative impact on overall tourism industry Statements selected that were in support of the proposal were Agree 5 34% Disagree 8 53% Undecided 2 13% Total 15 100% Agree 5 28% Disagree 10 55% Undecided 3 17% Total 15 100% 28% 55% 17% OVERALL BUSINESS/SERVICES Agree Disagree Undecided 34% 53% 13% BUSINESS/SERVICE CONTROL AREA Agree Disagree Undecided Page 276 of 350
Page 277
11 • It will allow the Council the opportunity to have more control over any detrimental impact on amenity and character of a neighbourhood within the Control Area. Reasons for supporting the proposal were varied including • Quality of evidence, application of the policy, losses of the STL sector Comments made by those that were undecided about the proposal were around • Quality of evidence • Lack of affordable housing rather than STLs being the issue, unclear how the proposal will impact that • Licensing has brought better balance Business/Service Categories We asked about the nature of the business/service. The businesses that were not in support were STLs, other accommodation, food and drink, and service providers. All the businesses that were in support of the proposals were STL businesses. Those that were undecided were also all STLs. The most common statement selected that was not in support of the proposal did not differ from that selected by business both inside and outside the proposed control area Additional reasons were given in the open comments • Having issues with the evidence presented • The Council should build more homes, tackle second homes and empty homes Organisations 67% of organisations supported the proposal, 33% were not in support the proposal (Chart 12 below). 5 out of the 6 organisations that responded were representing interests within the control area. 60% supported the proposal and 40% were not in support (Chart 13 below). One of those responses was an industry representative and representing multiple views of self-catering accommodation providers. Page 277 of 350
Page 278
12 Chart 12- Overall organisation responses Chart 13 - Control Area organisation responses Table 13: Overall resident responses Table: 14 Control Area resident responses. Reasons All 6 supporting statements were selected by organisations representing interests within the proposed control area (Statements listed on p.6) The respondents from outwith the proposed control area selected only two of the supporting statements number • There are too many short-term lets in the proposed Control Area and they’re impacting the availability of homes. It will give the Council the opportunity to have more control over the loss of homes to new short-term lets within the Control Area. • It will make it clearer as to when planning permission is or isn’t required for a short-term let, in the Control Area. Additional supportive reasoning was given from representations within and outwith the control area, summarised by:- • the introduction of any mechanisms to enable Councils to manage the number of second houses/holiday lets, to protect the local housing supply for long- term residents. We understand the importance of providing accommodation Agree 3 60% Disagree 2 40% Undecided 0 0% Total 15 100% Agree 2 33% Disagree 4 67% Undecided 0 0% Total 6 100% 60% 40% ORGANISATION RESPONSES (CA) Agree Disagree 67% 33% ORGANISATIONS Agree Disagree Page 278 of 350
Page 279
13 for visitors, however, this should be balanced with the housing needs of local communities. The Organisations that were not in support of the proposal were both within the control area. The most common statements selected that were not in support of the proposal were • The Council should use other tools at its disposal to support the numbers of homes locally. With very varied additional comments that can be summarised • STLs are not the cause of housing scarcity but are being treated as such. This narrative ignores larger structural issues: a lack of new supply, demographic shifts, and poor delivery of affordable homes. Other interests There were 3 responses representing 2% of respondents with other interests, all expressed an interest in the Control Area. These were former residents and a visitor. 67% were in support of the proposal and 33% were not in support of the proposal (Chart 14 below). Chart 14 – responses of other interest Reasons Those in support of the proposal selected the statements • The Council should use all the tools at its disposal to support the numbers of homes locally. 67% 33% OTHER INTERESTS agree disagree Page 279 of 350
Page 280
14 • It will allow the Council the opportunity to have more control over any detrimental impact on amenity and character of a neighbourhood within the Control Area. • It will make it clearer as to when planning permission is or isn’t required for a short-term let, in the Control Area. • It is fairer that all new tourism accommodation (purpose- built/conversion/change of use) in the Control Area will be treated the same way in the requirement for planning permission. The additional reasons given were • prevent existing long term rental properties becoming STLs, encourage the local communities to be more vocal in use applications for STLs Those with other interest, not in support of the proposal selected the statements • Controlling which new short-term lets in the Control Area get planning permission will not significantly improve the affordability of homes in the area. • There should not be more costs and controls on tourism businesses. • Controls on short-term lets could negatively impact tourism • The Council should use other tools at its disposal to support the numbers of homes locally No additional reasons were given. Page 280 of 350
Page 281
15 4. Additional Responses 113 additional comments were received outside the offered statements. They have been summarised below with the officer response and arranged by type of respondents. Within that, they have been ordered by frequency. *number of responses making the same point Table 15: Extended responses: nb. Responses will not tally with number of respondents as multiple points were made Control Area / Residents /‘Agree’ (no.of similar comments) Officer Response • The need for affordable housing for local single folk, young families, young people, downsizers and key workers is well known and STL accommodation puts further pressure on the system (14)* The proposal intends to provide a mechanism to help balance competing needs for property use. • Having fewer full-time residents not only detrimentally impacts the viability of local service provision and affects community cohesion. Communities are becoming holiday resorts. Few shops and businesses are open in winter. • More full-time residents would mean be year-round businesses. Match numbers of STLs with local facilities and attractions so the whole of Perth and Kinross can benefit (7) • Aberfeldy and Dunkeld mentioned specifically • Priced out of our community outbid by second home and STL owners. Hard to find long term rental homes (Eastern HMA- PH10 & Highland HMA- PH8). This policy will help the supply of long-term housing. (5). • All businesses including tourism business find it hard to get staff due to lack of housing (2) • Increased pressure on sewerage system, roads and parking from increased tourism used (2). Pressure on Dunkeld sewage system mentioned specifically (1) Page 281 of 350
Page 282
16 • The local Community Action Plan just completed in 2024 in my area had ‘Control of Short Term Let’s’ as the second priority for our community only after the number one priority of ‘More Affordable Housing’. • Pressure on road network from additional tourism traffic from over provision of tourist accommodation • Better balance needed especially in rural communities where commuting from Perth with more options just isn't possible. • Real issues with managing existing short term let problems in our postcode area - owners live abroad and no one cares what happens to the properties week to week spoils living here The proposal will extend the instances where planning matters can be considered, including amenity. • Extend to other areas The evidence does not support the inclusion of these areas at this time, however monitoring will continue • Former council houses should not be made into STLs. Should be returned to Council ownership if used as STL but for the same discount they received when purchased (2) This is not workable as there may have been several owners since the initial purchase from the Council. However former council properties may be considered in planning decisions as likely to be a more affordable home therefore requiring greater justification to become an STL, depending on the circumstances • Better financial returns on STLs and tenancy conditions of private rental tenancies means STLs are more favourable use Local authorities cannot affect the conditions of private rental tenancies however the proposal may impact the balance locally towards more favourable conditions for private lets. • Jobs within the village are being taken by people living further away, having to drive in and increasing the parking problems The policy is supported by planning policy NPF4, to support sustainable communities and local living • Many affordable homes (previously owned by Council or etc) have been sold privately and never replaced The Council has a programme to support the building of affordable homes in the proposal area. There are many barriers to building new homes. The policy is intended to support the availability within existing stock and any future stock. The council is currently reviewing the Local Development Plan. • I wish the council would stop allowing the building of holiday lets and build affordable housing Page 282 of 350
Page 283
17 • Increase taxation to triple for Council Tax second homes PKC increased Council Tax for second homes to the maximum level at the time in 2024. • I understand that as small businesses, STLs are exempt from rates. There have been an increasing number of STLs being run by owners based outwith P&K, so they are using local services but not contributing to the costs of the services they are using. A small business bonus scheme exists giving tapered relief for very small businesses. Any relief or rate would depend on the rateable value of the business(s) (combined). Business rates are payable to Perth and Kinross Council and therefore contributing to local services. • Agree, but more targeted STL CA would be better to avoid towns dependant on tourism Each application is considered on its merits therefore will not specifically impact a town or village but instead recognise the impact which might be at a street level. • 5 year residency for any applications There is currently no mechanism that would allow for this to be introduced Control Area/ Resident/ ‘Disagree’ (no.of similar comments) Officer Comment • Property is difficult to sell here including more affordable properties. Demand is low due to lack of amenities. STL demand facilitates sales in these more difficult locations, (4) Ballintuim, Glenlyon mentioned. The individual circumstances of each planning application would be considered. • The Council should fund the building of more affordable homes (4) The Council as a programme to support the building of affordable homes in the proposal area. There are many barriers to building new homes. The proposal is intended to support the availability within existing stock and any future stock. • Don’t see the evidence that the policy will increase availability of homes to let (2) • Risks impacting tourism - a major source of income in the local / rural economy, with short-term lets a small but valuable component of that (2) Page 283 of 350
Page 284
18 • The relationships in the demands for both 'affordable' housing and well-paid local employment are complex matters and not within the capabilities of PKC to solve or this policy. The policy intends to provide a mechanism to help balance competing needs for use property. • Rural places (40mins from A9) need STLs for tourism and income- Response is not proportionate to the facts. • Towns like Aberfeldy are economically supported by tourism. 15 years shops were closing. Now new cafes, shops, etc are opening. • STLs provide more affordable tourism accommodation than hotels which are getting increasingly expensive. Impacting STLs, will impact economic benefits gained from lower cost, often locally owned STLs – Pitlochry mentioned. • Have little faith in the planning system. Approval given to purpose built holiday letting that can cause serious disturbance. • Would be reluctant to widen the remit of planning. • It will result in few additional rejection of licences resulting in more revenue for the council The fees charged cover only the application costs. They are not mechanisms of taxation. Small numbers of additional homes can be valuable to supporting rural services such as retained fire services • I don’t understand why more bureaucracy than the licence scheme is needed. Strange that some ex-council/social type housing used as holiday lets. That is inexplicable. The Licence scheme has no legal framework to consider which housing is used for STL letting. The proposed Control Area would enable this consideration along with other planning considerations. • The Council has over-estimated the number of STLs (Dunkeld and Birnam mentioned) See comment on p.38 below Within the proposed control area, the number of empty homes is less than the number of short-term lets, see response on p.31 below • I understand empty homes are double the number of holiday lets Page 284 of 350
Page 285
19 Control Area/ Resident/ Undecided (no.of similar comments) • Too many houses being used as STLs, whilst less desirable property, like flats, now sit empty/unsellable because of the current rules. • My family can’t move into a house as no buyers for my flat and houses are all bought and changed to STLs The proposal will require change of use for houses to be treated in the same way as flats currently are. This aims to reduce the number of houses being changed into STLs Permission can be granted on flats and is dependant on the individual circumstances of the application • The proposal doesn’t go far enough. STLs Licence granted to a dwelling house in an area of housing pressure. Where key workers for the local school struggle to find housing. Unless councillors get tough, the proposals are more rigorous and community pressures are taken into consideration, this IS a total waste of time! The proposal will provide the legal framework for dwelling houses to require planning permission (currently only flats require planning permission) where the number of STLs and housing availability can be considered in the application. • Comment around homelessness experience due insufficient housing and at an affordable price. The proposal is one tool to help manage the number of homes available where this is the best use Outside proposed Control area / Resident/ ‘agree’ (no.of similar comments) The proposal intends to provide a mechanism to help balance competing needs for use property. • More homes for local residents at affordable rents for younger families and downsizing. Housing being built is for 2 income families and smaller housing is now STL (3) • Need families and young people to work in our business. Long term rentals needed to encourage them (2) • Ratio of STLs to housing is unsustainable (2) • Combine proposal with using the planning process to favour building of new homes converting empty. It seem to be easier to get permission for holiday homes than permanent homes at the moment. Page 285 of 350
Page 286
20 • Too many STLs for the demand resulting too many empty properties most of the year, whilst having to build more permanent homes The evidence does not support the inclusion of these areas at this time however monitoring will continue • As an NHS worker I’m concerned that health and social work services will be unable to find staff as they are unable to afford to live in the proposed Control Area • Include P&K (2), Comrie, Caputh-Meiklour- Blairgowrie. Caputh-Murthly-Stanley- to manage sensitive future development • Support but Control Area should be more targeted settlements • Conditions of private rental tenancies mean STLs are more attractive • Whilst a housing emergency exists all new [STL] lets should be put on hold. Current let's, if possible, should be reduced by 50%. The legal framework of the proposal does not allow for the legislation to be applied retrospectively to existing lawful STLs. Due to the economic benefits of STLs, the individual circumstances of each application will be considered. This will help balance competing needs for use of each property. Outside proposed Control area / Resident/ ‘disagree’ (no.of similar comments) • Better STLs than empty properties (2) The non-statutory guidance that guides planning decisions on STLs supports the conversion of empty homes to STLs, where this is appropriate • Focus should be addressing empty homes and second homes (2) PKC does this through the Empty Homes Initiative and applying a 100% supplement on the Council Tax of second homes. • unlikely to have any real impact on housing shortages in Perth and Kinross (2) The proposal is not intended to address all causes of housing shortages but a tool that can be used to better Page 286 of 350
Page 287
21 • General comment about the lack of council property for single, elderly and people with disabilities; condition of old housing stock, design and quality of new build stock also listening to tenants’ needs from housing. Statement on the fairness of people owning 2 properties and using one for holiday letting balance the use of residential homes for tourism accommodation. • Concerns that restricting STLs will raise prices, harm tourism, and damage the local economy (2) The importance of tourism to the local economy in Perth and Kinross is recognised. The proposal is not a blanket ban on all STLs so will not ‘halt’ the growth of STLs. The proposal intends to provide a mechanism to help balance the competing needs of residential and tourism purposes to the benefit of sustainable local communities • STLs are small businesses. People working hard to make a living. People providing somewhere for tourists to stay. People employing local people. People making an honest living. Its time the Government and Local Councils stopped scape-goating STL owners and driving a culture of hate against them. • stimulate the economy to generate jobs and ultimately tax to pay for our priorities rather than ‘control’ (2) • Self-catering offers a different option to hotels often more suitable for people with disabilities and longer stays. • Reduction in availability of hotel accommodation due to migrant boats There are no hotels for asylum seekers in the proposed Control Area • Information provided is insufficient to make decisions. • Assessment of housing need is required You need to provide a view of.. 1. Total housing stock 2. % housing stock residential 3. % housing stock empty 4. % housing stock 2nd homes 5. % housing stock self catering/short term lets Background documents provided this detail. The evidence reports explain the rationale. Background documents to the consultation provided this detail specified in the response. Page 287 of 350
Page 288
22 • If the demand shows more affordable housing needed - stopping short term letting will make very little difference to housing stock availability. Result will be to damage the local economy. The Council completes a Housing Need and Demand Assessment every 5 years – and an abridged version (housing pressure study was updated which informed the proposal and attached to the Consultation) • plans have already been rejected, reintroducing for the “right” outcome undermines public trust. It was the decision of the full Council to proceed with the proposal. • Outside Control Area / Resident/ Undecided (1 comment made) • Additional benefit suggestion- STL Contribution - give permission to STLs on the condition that they make a contribution towards the HRA to help expand affordable housing Currently there is no legal mechanism to do this. Proposed Control Area / Business/ Disagree (no.of similar comments) STL business • Council should have a coherent policy for tourism and housing - which it currently does not, resulting in contradictory planning consents to the aim of providing more affordable homes. Planning decisions are based on a suite of policies outlined in NPP4, LDP 2 and non-statutory STL planning guidance. The proposal will provide more opportunities for development to be guided by these policies and aim for a balance between competing uses. • Obstructive, senseless initiatives. Creating chaos, extra red tape, unfair bias, de facto stealth taxes, micromanagement, and destruction to local, small tourism businesses. The proposal is not a ban on new STL lets, but individual impact on the availability of homes and short-term lets can Page 288 of 350
Page 289
23 SUPPORT your local residents who work hard to uphold and continue the fantastic and VITAL tourist trade by providing short term lets. both be considered for the economic and community benefits. The Council has a programme to support the building of affordable homes in the proposal area. There are many barriers to building new homes. The policy is intended to support the availability within existing stock and any future stock. PKC supports the conversion of empty homes back into use for residential use through the Empty Homes Initiative. Conversion of empty/derelict properties is supported by the non-statutory guidance that guides decisions on STLs. In this way STLs can play a part in the restoration of these properties back into use. • This consultation to address the lack of affordable homes is misguided. It’s lazy scapegoating to target short-term-lets. Holiday lets are not the issue • The lack of new affordable homes being built is the issue • no tangible action plans to reinstate the significantly high number of empty and derelict properties into homes these hugely imperative solutions must be brought into this consultation to ensure a comprehensive review is being undertaken to establish a credible strategy to create affordable homes. • It has become difficult over the last few years to operate a self-catering business and to do "our bit" to help the tourist industry within P&K. Pressures include:- • STL licencing requirements (cost and effort); rising energy costs; rising cost of living. The market won't bear these costs being fully passed-on to the customer. Noted. The proposal will not impact the costs of existing lawfully operating STLs as the proposal is not retrospective. It would only apply to new STLs. • The proposal is not well targeted, evidenced, and risks doing harm without solving the issues it is supposed to address. • Dunkeld & Birnam is not equivalent to remote Highland Perthshire. The data being used doesn’t reflect how our local housing market actually works. • D&B is 10-15 mins from Perth, on rail line, our local workforce and housing market are tied into a much bigger area. The evidence reports explain the rationale - Background documents to the consultation provide this detail. Analysis of house sales conducted to Scottish Government standard, indicates that Dunkeld and Birnam are part of the Highland Housing Market area. Page 289 of 350
Page 290
24 • No evidence PH8 is running out of housing land • Council’s Housing Land Audit state issue is delivery, not land supply. Pipeline of housing in the wider Perth and Highland areas that local people can and do access • Misleading to suggest that STLs are blocking new homes when the Council identifies economic conditions, construction costs and slow build-out rates as the primary constraints. • Reported planning stats suggests existing system is largely working, since 2021,153 STL planning applications relating to STLs in proposed Control Area — fewer than 38 per year. • This planning activity does not suggest widespread or rapid conversion of houses requiring intervention; indicates existing planning framework is generally effective • The reported growth in licence numbers appears to coincide with the bedding-in of the licensing scheme itself, not a sudden surge in new conversions of residential housing. • Licence numbers and growth figures are being presented without sufficient context i.e. a licence does not equate to the loss of a family home. • all kinds of tourist accommodation have been lumped together, (yurts etc, purpose-built lodges, timeshares, home- sharing in someone’s spare room, and very large houses that were never realistic family homes). Giving the impression that “lots of homes” have been converted to STLs that actually have, so headline exaggerates the scale of the problem. The current local development plan has almost no allocated housing land in PH8. The proposal would allow the best use of existing residential housing to be considered in STL applications, in an area of limited potential for new housing. There are many barriers to building new homes, particularly in the current economic climate. The policy is intended to support the future availability of residential homes. Planning permission is currently only required for a small number of the STL new licence applications granted. The proposed control area will extend this to all STLs so that the number of homes, economic benefits, amenity and other planning considerations can be assessed. The introduction of the Licensing scheme has been taken into account where possible Our reports are clear that the figures include the total number of secondary STLs. The way the data is collected makes it difficult to identify the number of homes changed to STLs historically. The figures therefore do reflect where tourism accommodation prevalence is relatively high and also an important contributor to the economy. The proposal is not a blanket ban on STLs but a requirement for more new STLs to require planning permission. Decisions on planning applications will be made on the individual context of the STLs. Current prevalence of STLs in D&B (PH8) is 10%. Page 290 of 350
Page 291
25 • No clear definition of a “tipping point”/proof we’re close to one • Without that clarity, the proposal feels more like a reaction to general concern than a targeted response to a demonstrated problem • No evidence restricting future STLs in PH8 would improve recruitment or produce housing in any measurable way. • STL use provides a market for flats that aren’t sold or make it into the rental market. • STLs lets play a key role in Tourism economy of D&B • STLs offer to a wider range of visitors than hotels can • STLs creates, local work, especially important for women, carers with flexible hours • Local staffing pressures are national issues, not STL-driven, even in places with almost no holiday accommodation. Causes:- ageing population, low pay in key sectors, shortages across health and social care, and changing working patterns. • more effective, less disruptive alternatives:- • stronger action on second homes, • bringing empty houses back into use, This will give the council the opportunity to consider all planning matters as well as the prevalence of all tourism accommodation in the area of the application where currently there is very little opportunity for the council to do this. The local community and development trust has been asking the Council to address housing pressure and the role of STLs in the PH8 and evidenced in the recent CAP. Engagement of this kind with several communities within the proposed Control Area led directly to the research and consideration of introducing a STL Control area. The proposal intends to support the number of options in the residential market where relevant. Small numbers can make a difference in rural communities enabling services to continue eg. Retained fire service. Where these issues are housing-related PKC can use the tools at its disposal to mitigate some of the contributing factors. This proposal is one of tool of several aimed at improving the availability of residential homes. The council is addressing second home ownership through the increased Council Tax Supplement for second homes. Page 291 of 350
Page 292
26 • helping developers deliver on existing allocated sites, community-led housing, • targeted rules for specific streets or areas where there is a genuine issue. These measures feel more focused and constructive than a blanket control zone. • A control area will push more decisions into political territory, so decisions will be inconsistent and driven by local pressure/politics more than by evidence. • What may be lost if legislation becomes too restrictive: the occupation of a large historic house, renovation of annexes, (some derelict), into long-term let and STLs • Short-term letting allowed our family, to return to the area, care for family members, make, a viable living and contribute to the local community. • Concerned that if the regulatory environment becomes overly restrictive, future owners may be discouraged from taking on derelict or challenging buildings, and the kinds of opportunities that allowed us to return home and invest locally may no longer be possible. • We strongly believe in finding a balance between housing and tourism, but we feel the current proposal does not get that balance right. • We ask the Council to withdraw or rethink the proposal, or to postpone it until proper, PH8-specific evidence is gathered and alternatives have been explored. • We all want a thriving, sustainable community; however, this proposal, feels more likely to undermine than protect it. PKC supports the conversion of empty homes back into use for residential use through the Empty Homes Initiative. PKC is supporting the Dunkeld and Birnam Development Trust to identify potential sites for Community Led Housing The proposal is not a blanket ban on STLs. It will require more STLs to obtain planning permission, whereby a decision will be guided by planning policies, and based on the individual circumstances of the application. Conversion of empty properties is considered by the non- statutory guidance that guides decisions on STLs. In this way STLs are recognised in playing a positive part in the restoration of these properties back into use. It may be the case planning permission is required for the type of project highlighted, in which case the proposal is unlikely to have additional impact The policy intends to provide a mechanism to help balance competing needs for use property for economic and community benefit. Page 292 of 350
Page 293
27 • many rural STLs are used as an income stream from tourism - so important for enabling people to continue to live in rural areas with limited job opportunities. The proposal is not a ban on new STL lets but individual impact on availability of homes and short-term lets can both be considered for the economic and community benefits. • Other business Our experience is • 40% downturn in tourism trade this summer • Lots of property for sale but market is dead. • Long term rental is not financially viable due to recent increase in regulation protecting tenants. There is no economic confidence in the property market or anything at the moment Noted The evidence shows that across the proposed STL Control Area, that there is increasing pressure on housing availability and affordability • The Cairngorms National Park attracts tourism to the region • Availability of short-term lets boosts the local economy by generating jobs in management of the lets and trade to pubs, restaurants and shops. • This boost is not achieved where STLs are not available or where visitors opt for the use of camper vans and wild camping. • Control area will reduce the availability STLs that support the local economy. The proposal is not a ban on new STL lets but individual impact on availability of homes and short-term lets can both be considered for the economic and community benefits. Page 293 of 350
Page 294
28 • STL's are not a driver of Scotland's housing crisis • P&K planning has led to Kenmore community to be destroyed by allowing 4 large Self-catering businesses without ensuring the owners built much needed accommodation for workers, and residents • It is now a designated holiday village with Taymouth Castle and Taymarina and has led to a lack of housing for residential use. • Cost of market housing (sale and rent) is prohibitive to local wage levels • STLs have a role in supporting rural incomes and retirement Plans after tied-accommodation and are a traditional solution. • STL's should be recognised as part of the solution to building resilient, balanced and sustainable communities. • Concentrations of holiday villages should be severely restricted as it has been shown the dispersal of STL's throughout a place gives better balance to the housing diversification and maintains the community Noted Recent affordability analysis indicates that house prices in the proposed Control Area have been continuing to grow significantly over the last 5 years. The proposal is not a ban on new STL lets but individual impact on availability of homes and short-term lets can both be considered for economic and community benefit Control area /Business / ‘Agree’ (no.of similar comments) STL business • Stop the proliferation of new lodges and purpose-built holiday lets • Must not be applied retrospectively. • Unnecessary paperwork and cost to an already too busy Planning Department. The proposed legislation cannot be applied retrospectively to lawfully operating STLs • There are very few homes to let or buy for residential purposes-If you buy somewhere with outbuildings to convert, Page 294 of 350
Page 295
29 or to have pods, proposing to live there yourself, I'd be in favour - brings increase in overall consuming population without losing a full-time resident/family and contributor to the community. These examples currently require planning permission and are considered on an individual basis in line with planning policy. The proposal would bring further types of STL into this individualised consideration. • Figures are mis-leading-STLs are a tiny minority of households • Competing demands are not straightforward: incoming retirees, remote working from home, second homes, other tourism accommodation they are all interdependent and contribute to Highland Ps economy. • Vocal lobby wanting affordable housing in an area they can afford to live in including those with no vested interest (eg. Taymouth Castle lobby) • Some STLs aren’t suitable for permanent housing and are premium priced as they represent an ideal. Same for newbuilds and period homes • Controlling STLs won’t improve affordability; issue is new social rent is not being built whilst sprawling purpose built holiday villages don’t provide permanent housing • The missed Tay Forest Park may have done this • Self-catering is where the most spending per capita occurs • The challenge is to encourage this type of tourism which protecting natural assets. • Managing numbers and standards is a part of this. STL Licences and Control Area are supported because of that • Providing affordable accommodation for local people is essentially a separate issue. Prevalence of STLs varies. As outlined in the evidence, the numbers are considered to be significant enough for a STL Control Area to be proposed to better balance the use of residential housing for the benefit of local communities. The competing demands on residential can be considered on an individual basis via a planning application. The proposal will bring more instances where this individualised decision can be made to assist a better balance in for sustainable communities. Page 295 of 350
Page 296
30 Not in Control Area/ Business/ ‘Disagree’ (no.of similar comments) • Pressures on us include, STL licencing requirements (cost and effort); rising energy costs; rising cost of living which means that the market won't bear these costs being fully passed-on. The proposal does not apply to existing lawfully operating STLs. The viability of new STLs may have to reach higher tests before being converted from residential use. The proposal aims to help balance competing demands for residential property. • Lack of Evidence and Transparency • Small fraction of the total housing stock used for STLs in Perth & Kinross - 1.7% • whilst double (3.5%) of homes sit empty The supporting papers detailed the evidence including the Housing Pressure study. Whilst the figures quoted by the respondent were correct at the time, they refer to the whole of PKC. As the supporting evidence report indicated, Empty homes in the proposed control area were fewer than the number of STLs. • Jan 2024-Empty properties in proposed control area = 6% • Jan 2024-Second homes in proposed control area = 9% • Jan 2024-STLs in proposed control area = 9% Council’s initiatives have led to reductions in both empty properties and second homes within the control area:- • Apr 2026-Empty Properties in proposed control area = 3% • Apr 2026-Second homes= in proposed control area = 8% • Apr 2026- STLs in proposed control area = 930 = 13% The evidence has been completed at the sub-PKC level, enabling the identification of geographic areas where the prevalence of short-term lets is having a more significant impact. As concluded in the supporting report, in these locations, STLs were significantly higher than the 1.7% quoted i.e Highland HMA (9%) and north-Eastern HMA (13%). These areas are included in the proposed control Page 296 of 350
Page 297
31 • In Dunkeld & Birnam, Council’s figures overstated STL prevalence — claiming 15% when actual figure is 5.7%. • These discrepancies raise serious questions about the accuracy and transparency of the data underpinning the proposal. Before any PCA is considered, the Council must explain: • Why it is pursuing a policy that has already been rejected twice. • What new evidence has emerged to justify this renewed attempt. • How a PCA would realistically deliver additional housing supply, given the minimal proportion of homes involved. • Self-catering tourism contributes £52 million annually to the local economy and supports hundreds of microbusinesses across Perth & Kinross. • STLs play a vital role in rural and seasonal tourism, offering flexible accommodation and supporting local jobs. • Disproportionate regulation risks harming small businesses and undermining the region’s visitor economy. • Constructive Alternatives • Rather than targeting responsible operators, the Council should focus on: • Bringing empty homes and underused second homes back into use. • Accelerating affordable housebuilding, especially in rural areas where housing pressures are most acute. • Fostering collaboration between the housing and tourism sectors to develop balanced, community-led solutions. area. Areas with less impact are not included in the proposal. The figure quoted for Dunkeld & Birnam is not correct. See response on p.38 for more detail. The Scottish Government introduced regulation to improve standards via the STL licensing scheme. Perth and Kinross Full Council wanted to regulate the expansion of STLs and therefore considered and approved the proposal for STL CA The role of STLs to the local economy is fully acknowledged and the proposal is not to ban new STLs but to consider competing use of residential property and amenity impacts. PKC supports the conversion of empty homes back into use for residential use through the Empty Homes Initiative. Empty homes are one consideration in the STL non- statutory planning guidance. As well as purchasing homes to secure some affordable supply in Dunkeld, the Council has a programme to support the building of affordable homes in the proposal area. There are many barriers to building new homes. The policy is intended to support the availability within existing stock and Page 297 of 350
Page 298
32 • This response is not a rejection of regulation — it is a call for proportionate, evidence-based policy. • Members of the community support fair oversight of short- term lets but oppose blanket controls that lack justification and risk unintended harm. • We urge the Council to work constructively with residents, businesses, and stakeholders to develop solutions that protect housing supply while sustaining the local economy. any future stock. PKC supports local development trusts to develop community led housing Regulation requires deeper justification for prospective STL business owners to provide a better balance of land use in communities. The Council believes the proposal is proportionate response to the circumstances. Control Area / Business / ‘undecided’ • Farmers need scale to achieve economic success so does holiday letting. Some operations need to scale up and this could be thwarted by excess letting by distant neighbours. Noted • Unsure of what the control zone will add. At present with the short term let licensing there is a much better balance than previously. • the problem in the area is not the concentration of STLs but the lack of affordable housing. The proposal will extend the requirement for planning permission to more properties allowing the balance to be considered more effectively In locations where housing supply is constrained due to a number of factors as evidenced, managing numbers of STL can be supportive of a better balance • The facts you have presented (number or short term lets and growth rate by area) are presented with NO context. You haven't included the number of available dwelling houses/flats etc, what % STLs represent of those, and what's the growth rate of those are (eg: new builds for dwelling). • How do the figures and % of STL figures compare with other regions, national averages etc. A more comprehensive The supporting documents in the consultation provided this context. At the time of the decision, Scottish Government figures indicated that Perth and Kinross has the 4th highest numbers of STLs in Scotland and the third highest concentration. Page 298 of 350
Page 299
33 review is required in order for me to understand the situation, and to give a view. Organisation / ‘Agree’ (no.of similar comments) The need for affordable housing well known and STL accommodation puts further pressure on the system (2) Lack of housing is the No.1 priority issue in Highland Perthshire, and especially in the area around Aberfeldy. It is a genuine issue, and the scale is much wider than many people appreciate. It denies opportunities to live here for young people, and local services and businesses shop workers. Unaddressed, this will threaten the very fabric of this community. Arguably, it has been doing this already for several years, and certainly since lock down in 2020. Control of short term lets is one part of the equation for dealing with this. Aberfeldy Community Council Noted Several community surveys to support the Community Action Plan between 2022 and 2025, representing 1200 households and 26 businesses. STL Control Area • was the number two priority of the community Housing Community Action Plan Noted Page 299 of 350
Page 300
34 • the biggest single issue (56%) was the lack of affordable homes to buy or let, for people who work or want to work here. • the lack of control on 2nd homes and STLs - 23% of respondents stating there were too many 2nd homes/holiday lets. Affordability Lower than average wages and higher than average house prices. • Ave house prices Aberfeldy: (2025/6) £334,775. • Higher than P&K average if £253,910 • 36% of the community are earning less than £25,000 a year • Survey based demand for social housing= 4 times the level of supply, never mind its availability. • 40% had one or more children • 45% would like to set up a business in the area if they were able to move into it. • Rannoch & Aberfeldy has one of the highest percentages of second houses/holiday lets to permanent homes, at 23% (11th) in Scotland. • highest concentration in the UK of Airbnb whole-property listings with 36 listed per 100 properties, so 36% (Guardian newspaper) “This choking of supply in the face of the demand that the Housing Needs Survey shows is undoubtedly one of the underlying causes of the unaffordability of local housing.” • Nearly 70 % of respondents have tried to find housing in the area already but failed • 203 households stated that they may need housing within Noted Page 300 of 350
Page 301
35 the next 5 years: • 87% support the need for more affordable housing Left unmitigated these risks exacerbating demographic changes. • Aberfeldy has a higher proportion of people over 60 (35.6%) than the Scottish average. • with working-age population priced out of the housing market, this issue is likely to intensify. Business – housing affecting business operation & growth • 68% of businesses that have had experienced problems recruiting / retaining staff due to a lack of suitable housing locally and is a frequent and re-occuring problem • Nearly 50% of businesses feel that their staff turnover is impacted by a lack of affordable housing; • A total of 25 employees were identified from the survey that require housing in the area; • With nearly 70% of businesses hoping to expand in the future, a lack of workers locally and lack of affordable housing were identified as the two most limiting factors to business growth. Accommodation for visitors is important, however, this should be balanced with the housing needs of local communities. Aberfeldy Development Trust strongly support the introduction of Perth and Kinross Council's proposed short term let planning control area. Noted Page 301 of 350
Page 302
36 Organisation control area ‘disagree’ On behalf of clients' who own and operate holiday lets in rural locations where issues around neighbour amenity and privacy are not triggered- the STL control area should not apply to outside settlements. Current planning regulations are adequate for these areas The proposal will allow all planning considerations to be made on an individual basis. The context of each application will be considered. The loss of residential dwellings can still be relevant in remote rural locations. No demonstrable link that restricting STLs will deliver the affordable housing that local communities need. Risks damaging vital part of local economy and businesses and jobs that depend on visitor spending STLs are not the cause of housing scarcity but are being treated as such. Narrative ignores larger structural issues: • a lack of new supply, • demographic shifts, • poor delivery of affordable homes. The proposed Control Area does not address, • empty • second homes. Policy likely to displace properties into • second home ownership See response on page 25. As some residential homes are being used for STLs they are by definition a part of the housing demand and supply. The intention of the proposal is to facilitate more options in the residential market, where needed. This is especially important for local purchasers whose buying capacity is up to £80k less than purchasers from outside the local housing market. Decisions on planning applications could increase the supply of homes. Even small numbers can make a large impact in rural communities. The challenges of increasing supply are acknowledged, and the proposal aims to support supply by considering the individual circumstances of each application in the context of competing demands. The proposed STL Control Area cannot not directly address second and empty homes. Other tools are used to do this. The non-statutory planning guidance highlights conversion of empty properties into STLs for consideration. The council is addressing second home ownership through the Council Tax Supplement for second homes. Since its Page 302 of 350
Page 303
37 • long-term vacancy. BiGGAR Economics demonstrated, • only 1.7% of properties are STLs, compared to • 3.5% empty across Perth and Kinross. In Dunkeld and Birnam, Council data wrongly claimed • 15% STL saturation, • when actual self-catering units account for just 5.7%, which was a fundamental misrepresentation. • It is critical to differentiate between self-catering units and second homes, with the latter generating no economic benefit. The Council must be cognisant of the legal risk re. Judicial Review of Edinburgh’s Planning Control Area, ruled • parts of the policy “unfair and illogical.” • Retrospective application of planning powers under Section 26B of the Act - unlawful. introduction in April 2024, there has been the move of some second homes into STLs. See response on p.31 The figure quoted by the respondent for Dunkeld & Birnam is not correct. The 2023 report published proxy data for STLs in the PH8 Dunkeld area as • Self-catering =5.7% • Second homes = 5.2% The true STLs figure would be sourced from both of these figures making a maximum of 10.9%. (15.6% was the proxy estimate of potential STLs for the proposed Control Area of which Dunkeld and Birnam included). The report included all of the figures above. The evidence has since been updated by data from the STL licence register which is more accurate than the proxy data and the figures quoted by the respondent are now out-of- date. The decision to establish a control area were made on the figures from the licence register. At the time of the decision to introduce a STL control area in May 2025 the prevalence of STLs in the PH8 postcode was 10% The Council is cognisant of the outcome of the Judicial Review referred to in the response and understands the powers cannot be applied retrospectively to existing lawfully operating STLs. Page 303 of 350
Page 304
38 Perth and Kinross Council risks the cost to the public purse if a challenge is similarly pursued. Finally, there is no evidence this approach actually works. • The Highland Council introduced a PCA in Badenoch and Strathspey March 2024, resulting in over 200 planning applications, confusion and huge expense to the sector. • There is zero evidence that it has delivered a single additional home. Had either City of Edinburgh Council or The Highland Council’s respective control areas met their policy intentions, we would have expected this to have informed the evidence base for this consultation. Association of Scottish Self-Caterers (ASSC) Highland Council have refused 43 STL planning applications change of use in Badenoch and Strathspey with 2 later granted on appeal. In the Perth and Kinross rural context, the retention of small numbers of residential homes can make a large impact on the maintenance of essential services such as retained fire services etc. The scale of this type of positive impact can be difficult to measure. The Council has deemed the response to be proportionate to the evidence to establish a STL Control Area to balance competing uses for residential property. Page 304 of 350
Page 305
1 Appendix 3 STATEMENT OF REASONS Introduction Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, Section 26B(1), and in line with the Town and Country Planning (Short-term Let Control Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 as amended, and Planning Circular 1/2023: Short-term Lets and Planning, Perth and Kinross Council intends to designate a Short-term Let Control Area covering Highland Housing Market Area, and northern parts of Eastern Housing Market Area to allow full consideration of impacts of the change of use of dwellinghouses to short-term lets on the availability of residential housing for the reasons set out below. As a consequence of designation, the impact of a short-term let on the character and amenity of those areas would be assessed through each planning application. Reason for designation 1. To enable consideration of impacts of short-term lets on the availability and affordability of residential housing within the control area. Concerns have been raised by communities on the impact of decreasing affordability and the role of short-term lets on housing supply and affordability. Public and stakeholder engagement for the Local Housing Strategy showed that 71% of respondents in Highland Housing Market Area (HMA) have concern over sufficiency and affordability of housing and 48% in Eastern HMA. There is evidence of higher levels of housing pressure in Highland HMA and northern parts of Eastern HMA, with affordability analysis indicating that 85% of resident households would not afford the average market house price in Highland HMA and 88% in north Eastern HMA. Concentrations of short-term lets are higher in these areas than in the rest of Perth and Kinross, with 9% in Highland HMA and 13% in north Eastern HMA, and although important economic contributors, the concerns of communities suggests that the balance of economic and housing needs is not in equilibrium. Capacity is limited for new build housing in part due to availability of unconstrained land, with 3% being available in Highland HMA and none in north Eastern HMA. Oversight of future use of existing residential stock will assist the planning authority in assessing the balance of a sustainable tourism industry and housing need. Northern Perthshire is adjacent to the Badenoch and Strathspey STL Control Area, which was designated in March 2024. There is the potential for demand from that zone to be displaced into Perth and Kinross, in particular parts that lie within the Cairngorms National Park. As these adjacent areas are evidenced to be experiencing housing pressure, it would be beneficial for the planning authority to be able to assess the concentrations of short-term lets. 7 Page 305 of 350
Page 306
2 Conclusion Community engagement has raised concerns among business and residents of the impact of decreasing affordability and supply of homes on the sustainability of local communities. Housing pressure analysis indicates that in Highland Market Area and, northern parts of Eastern HMA there is significant housing pressure and short-term lets have a role in this pressure. It is therefore concluded that the establishment of a Short-term Let Control Area would provide the Council and the Cairngorms National Park Authority with the opportunity to consider the impacts on the availability of residential housing in future applications while also balancing sustainable tourism development for the benefit rural communities. A short-term let control area would also: provide clarity on the need for planning permission for the change of use of a dwellinghouse to an STL within the designated area. allow the opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed change of use of a dwellinghouse to an STL within the designated area, through the planning application process. Page 306 of 350
Page 307
Appendix 4 Map of proposed Short Term Let Control Area Legend Control Area HMA boundaries 7 Page 307 of 350
Page 308
Page 308 of 350
Page 309
0 Appendix 5 Evidence Paper- Short-term Lets Proposed Control Area 28th August 2025 7 Page 309 of 350
Page 310
1 Executive Summary • Communities in northern parts of Perth and Kinross have expressed concern about the supply and affordability of housing • Local businesses and key services have also reported a negative impact on staff retention and turnover due to housing shortage issues • Housing Market Pressure research identified STLs as a contributor to Housing Pressure with the greatest impact in northern and eastern parts of Perth and Kinross. • There is limited land available to build more housing to address residential and demand from commercial STLs, in northern and eastern parts of Perth and Kinross. • In February 2025, 1699 licences had been granted for secondary STLs. The majority (49%) in Highland (HMA), 18%, in Greater Perth HMA, 15% in both Eastern and Strathearn and 3% in Kinross. The number of new STLs continues to grow. • The tourism sector has faced challenges since the Covid-19 pandemic, and is concerned that increasing bureaucracy will have a damaging impact on the health of the tourism accommodation sector. • In 2019 visitor numbers and the tourism’s contribution to the economy peaked. Visitor numbers returned to 2019 levels in 2023 however the accommodation sector has not quite returned to the 2019 peak. • A STL Control Area is proposed to allow the council as planning authority to have consideration for the impact of residential amenity and resource in line with the non-statutory planning guidance (link?) with respect to all STL Licence applications in northern parts of Perth and Kinross instead of only flatted dwellings which is current situation. • The 2023 public consultation on the principle of a STL Control Area, found 53% in favour and 41% not in favour. • A STL Control Area would not affect existing STLs as it would not be applied retrospectively. It would also not impact on flats which already have to apply for planning permission. Page 310 of 350
Page 311
2 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to update and present the evidence base to the Council of the need for a Short Term Let (STL) Control Area in northern parts of Perth and Kinross. The area is mapped in appendix 4 of the STL Control Area report to the Council on the 7th May. This evidence will inform the statutory process including the ‘Statement of Reasons’ to be submitted for approval to Scottish ministers should the recommendation for the establishment of a Control Area be accepted. Planning policy allows for consideration of the impact of the Change of Use of residential homes to Short Term Lets under NPF4 Tourism Policy NPF4 Tourism Policy 30 e): “Development proposals for the reuse of existing buildings for short term holiday letting will not be supported where the proposal will result in: i) An unacceptable impact on local amenity or the character of a neighbourhood or area; or ii) The loss of residential accommodation where such loss is not outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits” Currently the opportunity to consider this policy by way of a planning application, applies in limited circumstances mainly with regard to flats. A control area would expand the opportunity to relate to all residences changing to a Short Term Let. This would will enable the planning authority to consider the availability of residential homes and the concentration of STLs when making planning decisions on properties within the Control Area. This expanded requirement for planning permission would only apply after a Control Area is designated and would not apply to existing licenced STLs. This would give the planning authority the ability to control only the future numbers of STLs within the control area. The purpose of an STL control area is one means by which the Council could support the future balance of tourism accommodation provision and the housing needs of the local residents, businesses and services in communities where there is currently an imbalance. Page 311 of 350
Page 312
3 2. Evidence 2.1 Public Engagement Engagement during the creation of the Local Housing Strategy highlighted issues with the availability and cost of housing. 71% of respondents to the survey in Highland Housing Market Area (HMA) and 48% in Eastern (Strathmore & the Glens) HMA, showed concern over supply and affordability of housing, outlined in figure 1 below. Figure 1: LHS Engagement concerns regarding housing 2022-02-15 PKC LHS Early Engagement Results.pdf Page 312 of 350
Page 313
4 Similar feedback from other consultation events for several strategies and Community Action Plans have raised the issue of the availability and affordability of housing. • Local Development Plan 3 - The Big Place Conversation - Perth & Kinross Council (pkc.gov.uk) • National Park proposal Tay_Forest_National_Park_-_Consultation_Analysis_Report_Final_for_website.pdf (pkc.gov.uk) • Community Action Plans: o PH8_Community_Action_PLan_2022-2027_FULL_DIGITAL.pdf (dunkeldandbirnamnews.co.uk) o PitlochryCAP-fin_al-document-with-printer-1.pdf (pitlochryaction.org.uk), PitlochryCAP-fin_al-document- with-printer-1.pdf (pitlochryaction.org.uk) o Highland___Strathtay_Local_Action_Plan.pdf (pkc.gov.uk). 2.2 Essential Services Since 2021, there has been several reports to the Council of essential services being temporarily impacted by staffing issues linked to accommodation shortages, in these instances across Highland Perthshire- • NHS - temporary closure of Pitlochry Community Hospital Inpatient services • Reserve fire services in Dunkeld – issue reported to Community Planning Committee of staff shortage • Education service in Kinloch Rannoch – reported to Housing Services of lack of housing for staff Although the impacts were not permanent, these could be early warning signs of future longer-term difficulties. 2.3 Business Concerns Local Housing Needs Assessments conducted in 2021 and 2022 highlighted business challenges resulting from housing availability for staff, affecting recruitment and retention. Business responses indicated in figure 2 below, highlights concerns for both current operations and future business growth, in locations where tourism a key part of the economy. Page 313 of 350
Page 314
5 Figure 2: Business survey collated from HNAs 2021-2022 2.4 Housing Pressure Study A Perth and Kinross wide housing pressure study was conducted in early 2024 as part of the evidence paper accompanying the Committee Report (ref: 24/235) for the Economy and Infrastructure Committee on 28 August 2024. The study by housing research consultants Arneil Johnston assessed the role of various housing market indicators, including short-term lets, and compared housing pressure across Housing Market Areas and in targeted locations (hotspots) where concentrations of STLs warranted a deeper analysis. Page 314 of 350
Page 315
6 Housing Market Areas A summary of the analysis across Housing Market Areas is given in figure 3 below. It demonstrates that • The highest pressure of all areas, from all indicators, is in Highland Housing Market Area. • STLs have the greatest impact in this market area • Housing pressure is twice as great in Eastern HMA as in Greater Perth HMA • There is moderate pressure in Kinross-shire and it is not due to STLs. • Pressure in Strathearn is more significant but due mainly to affordability reasons with a more moderate impact from STLs. Analysis ‘hotspots’ Housing pressure analysis on more targeted areas ‘hotspots’ also outlined in figure 3 below indicates • High pressure in the northern part of Eastern HMA, scoring high on all indicators, including Short-term Lets. • Scores on all indicators are low for Perth City hotspot, indicating that concentrations of STLs are too low to contribute to any housing pressure in Perth City. • In relative terms, housing pressure in Comrie and Crieff is moderate • Comrie and Crieff have relatively few STLs Page 315 of 350
Page 316
7 Figure 3: Housing Pressure Study Summary 2024 Page 316 of 350
Page 317
8 The Scottish government cites volumes of sales to inward migration as a potential reason to demonstrate the need for an STL Control Area. The figure 4 below indicates that Highland HMA and north-eastern hotspot has the greatest proportion of sales to inward migration at 57% and 61% respectively. Figure 4: Housing Pressure Study Summary 2024 Page 317 of 350
Page 318
9 3. PKC Interventions 3.1 Interventions The council conducts several initiatives to support living in communities identified in the above study as areas of housing pressure, including, Council Tax second homes supplement • Legislation was introduced in April 2024 to allow Councils to increase the second homes supplement to 100% to address second home ownership. Perth & Kinross Council has exercised this option. Empty Homes • Empty Homes Initiative to channel funding and efforts to bring suitable empty properties into use Rural Homes • Working with Scottish Government and PKC Housing and Property Services, to release funding for homes for rural key workers • Working to identify land suitable for affordable housing for short-term and longer-term land supply. • This land supply will support Council and community led housing development opportunities. 3.2 Limitations The work outlined above is limited by the availability of land in rural areas and that land being developed for housing. The map below (figure 5) illustrates in pink the land that is suitable to be developed for housing. It is clear the supply of suitable land is limited particularly in areas of housing pressure. The potential for areas outside Greater Perth to mitigate housing pressure through new build housing is clearly constrained. 16% of land is in Strathearn, the majority of which is in Crieff at (10%). Eastern HMA has 13% of suitable land but none of it is within the north-eastern hotspot area. Kinross has 9% of suitable land and Highland has just 3% whereas Greater Perth has 55% of land suitable for housing development. Page 318 of 350
Page 319
10 Figure 5: Distribution of unconstrained housing land per Housing Market Area Legend HLA– unconstrained land Housing Market Areas Page 319 of 350
Page 320
11 Delivery of housing on suitable land is equally challenging. The map, figure 6, below illustrates that suitable land for housing in Highland Perthshire has not been developed. Figure 6: map above shows the distribution of the remaining housing land supply where 50+ houses are still to be built (2023 Housing Land Audit). Page 320 of 350
Page 321
12 4. Short Term Lets 4.1 STL Licence Data The map (figure 7) and table (figure 8) below provide the number and distribution of STL lets across the Housing Market Areas of Perth and Kinross. By 19th February 2025, the STL Licence scheme (introduced in October 2022) had granted a total of 1699 licences for secondary lets. The majority (49%) are in Highland Housing Market Area (HMA), 18% in Greater Perth HMA, 15% in both Eastern and Strathearn and 3% in Kinross HMA. Figure 8: Distribution of secondary STLs across Housing Market Areas at 19th February 2025 Existing STLs had to apply for licence registration by 30 September 2023. Since then the growth in the number of new licences has been significant at 32% across all areas. The table below (figure 9) outlines the growth rates across Housing Market Areas. The most growth has been in Eastern at 44%. Interestingly the growth is less pronounced, however at 27% it is still significant. Figure 9: Growth rate of secondary STLs across Housing Market Areas at Oct 2023-Feb 2025 This demonstrates a likely return of tourism health following the recent challenges since the Covid-19 pandemic. Page 321 of 350
Page 322
13 Figure 7: Map of Short-term Lets (secondary) Licences granted at 19th February 2025 Legen STLs by Postcod e Housing Market Areas Page 322 of 350
Page 323
14 4.2 Tourism The public consultation in 2023 on the principle of introducing a Control Area, received feedback from tourism accommodation representatives, generally not in favour of the proposal. The concern was that increasing bureaucracy will negatively impact a sector that has faced significant challenges since 2019. With regard for these concerns and the overall importance to the PKC economy, a review of tourism sector statistics was made and included in figure 10 below. The visitor economy has been impacted by recent economic challenges and although has not quite returned to the peak of 2019, recovery appears to be relatively strong in the face of current circumstances. Despite lower levels of visitor numbers (2.32 million) and stays (397,000 in non-serviced accommodation) than in 2019, the economic value of the sector as a whole and the value of the non-serviced tourism accommodation* in 2023, at £307million, was higher than 2019 (figure.10). Employment in the non-serviced accommodation sector has not returned to the 2019 peak with 2260 full time equivalent jobs in 2023, 21% down on the 2019 peak. Furthermore, research commissioned by the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers defines the contribution of the STL sector more directly. Biggar Economics assessed the economic impact generated by STLs across Scotland. The analysis published in December 2024 builds on the consultancy’s previous work on the impact of the STL sector on Edinburgh’s economy. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that the economic impact generated by the short-term let sector in Perth and Kinross is £51.8m GVA and 1,757 jobs in 2023. Introducing a Control Area would not prevent the growth of STLs. By Bringing the requirement for planning permission into line with other forms of tourism accommodation with regard to the planning system would allow for the needs of the community to be considered with regard to the economic benefits of STL accommodation, in balance with the need for housing to support the tourism jobs created and wider benefits. *Non serviced accommodation - Self-catering, lodges, glamping pods, camping (tent pitches), caravanning (static pitches) Page 323 of 350
Page 324
15 Figure 10: Source: PKC STEAM REPORT FOR 2012-2023 Page 324 of 350
Page 325
16 4.3 Planning System Under the current planning system, there are few opportunities for the council to consider the best use of housing. The table below indicates the number of applications for all types of STL by wards in the proposed Control Area between 2021 and 2025. The number of permissions being sought, totalling 153 (figure 11), is clearly well below the number of licences for STLs, indicating that there is a significant number of the STLs that do not require planning permission under the current system. This suggests there are significant number of occasions where the planning authority could consider the balance between competing needs for housing, but cannot under the current system. A STL Control Area would give the council more scope for these planning considerations to be made. Figure 11 : Numbers of planning applications relating to STLs 2021- March 2025 by Ward 5. Proposal The council can intervene by establishing a STL Control Area. This would bring all Changes of Use of residential buildings to the notice of the council via a requirement for planning permission. This would allow the planning authority the opportunity to consider whether the loss of a house from residential use would outweigh the benefits to the local economy Page 325 of 350
Page 326
17 of the house becoming an STL. At the moment the council has this opportunity with flats and all other tourism accommodation such as hotels, purpose built holiday lodges, yurts etc. A control area would require residential homes to be considered in the same manner. As such the introduction of a Control Area would not mean a change to use as an STL would no longer be permitted (in effect a blanket ban). Each case would be considered individually in context of the local cumulative impact of STLs. Figure 12 below illustrates some scenarios for information. The need for planning would only be applied to new applications and from the date of designation of a STL Control Area (if approved). Property Status STL Impact Use of flat as STL No change as planning permission is already required to do this Use of non residential buildings (e.g. agricultural or commercial building) as STL No change as planning permission is already required to do this Proposal for new build holiday accommodation including huts, caravans, chalets, etc No change as planning permission is already required to do this Existing dwellinghouses with STL licence for more than 10 years but no planning permission in place No change, the STL Control Area requirements would not be retrospective Existing dwellinghouses with STL licence less than 10 years but no planning permission in place No change, the STL Control Area requirements would not be retrospective but the owner could apply for Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development to regularise the STL use Use of dwellinghouse as STL Change – this will now require planning permission Figure 12 : Numbers of planning applications relating to STLs 2021- March 2025 by Ward Page 326 of 350
Page 327
18 5.2 Consultation Results An early stage public consultation was undertaken to assess public appetite for a STL Control Area in northern parts of Perthshire (Highland Housing Market Area and northern half of Eastern Housing Market Area) see map Appendix 4. The aggregate consultation results in figure 13 below illustrates that most responses were in favour of the principle of an STL Control Area at 53%, and 41% not in favour. When views were broken down by respondent type (figure 14), there was an almost equal split with 70% of residents agreeing and 73% of business owners disagreeing. Responses on behalf of organisations were split equally between agree and disagree. The same pattern of responses was expressed for the proposed location of the STL control area (Highland HMA and the northern half of Eastern HMA) with 46% supportive and 43% not in favour. 11% were uncommitted either way. The consultation asked for an indicator of location of the respondent with a postcode area. Over 200 (67%) responses came from postcode areas within the proposed control area location. Of these, most responses were in favour of the principle at 76% of residents and 57% of organisations in support. 75% of residents and 80% of the 7 organisations representing the control area were in favour of the location and were illustrated in the consultation report in appendix 2 of the 28th August Economy and Infrastructure Committee Report, page 14. Again, business responses from postcode areas within the proposed control area were not in support, with 69% not in favour of the principle. Page 327 of 350
Page 328
19 Figure 13: Consultation responses to principle and location of the proposed STL Control Area Page 328 of 350
Page 329
20 Figure 14: Consultation responses to principle of the proposed STL Control Area by respondent categories Organisations included Community Councils (3) Community Development Trusts (2) Trade orgs (5) Groups of residents (2) Political Groups (2) Q. To what extent do you agree with the principle of a short-term let planning control area? Page 329 of 350
Page 330
21 5.3 Summary The evidence of the growth of STLs, housing demand, and business challenges suggests that the balance of economic benefit of the visitor accommodation sector and housing need is not in equilibrium. The consultation responses also demonstrate the extent to which tourism is a vital part of the economy in some parts of Perth and Kinross and that a balanced approach is needed to manage the available housing stock more effectively. Although the consultant's report for the Housing Pressure Study recommended a comprehensive approach, and included a STL Control Area in locations of both relatively high pressure, (Highland HMA and the north Eastern ‘hotspot’) and more moderate pressure (Crieff and Comrie) where the number of STLs play a part, the recommendations set out in the research report are not fully supported. Closer examination of the concentrations of STLs (outlined in figure 15 below) in the Comrie postcode area show a lower percentage of STLs at only 2%. Second homes are a greater contributor to housing pressure in this area at 3%. As such, other controls such as the Council Tax supplement may be more effective than a STL Control Area in achieving a balance of housing use. In the Crieff area STLs are also not a significant contributor to housing pressure being approximately the same as the Perth and Kinross average. In contrast, this is not the case in Highland and north Eastern HMAs. STLs here are well above average concentrations at 9% and 13% respectively. This is distinctly higher than in other parts of Perth and Kinross, as illustrated in figure 15 below. Page 330 of 350
Page 331
22 Figure 15: Concentrations of STLs as % housing stock by study areas Furthermore, the consultation on the principle and boundary of a control area found that most respondents from Crieff and Comrie area, whether resident or business, were not supportive of a Control Area, with 40% in favour and 60% against overall. Page 331 of 350
Page 332
23 6. Conclusion In areas of high housing pressure there is evidence that this housing pressure is also impacting on local businesses and services, evidencing the concerns of local communities. STLs have a contributing (but not sole) factor in housing pressure in Highland HMA and north eastern areas of Eastern HMA. The Council is working to address other contributors to housing pressure: • Council Tax second homes supplement • Empty Homes • More Rural Homes To supplement this work and investment, and acknowledging the benefits visitor accommodation can bring to local economies, it is recommended that an STL Control Area would be appropriate in the more limited geographic area of the Highland HMA and the northern part of the Eastern HMA to help manage the future balance of availability of residential homes and short-term lets. Page 332 of 350
Page 333
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Perth and Kinross Council Date of Meeting: 17 June 2026 Report Title: Responsible Busking Code of Conduct Report Number: 26/177 Report Author: Emily Queen, City and Town Centre Management Officer – Business Place and Investment Organisational Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 On Wednesday, January 14 Perth City Centre ward Councillors Peter Barrett and Bailie Chris Ahern successfully tabled a motion instructing council officers to prepare a busking code of conduct. The purpose of this report is to seek Committee approval for the adoption of a Responsible Busking Code of Conduct for Perth city centre. The proposed Code of Conduct aims to support and encourage street entertainment while ensuring that busking activity does not cause nuisance, obstruction, or disturbance to businesses, residents, or visitors. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Main Issues 4. Proposals 5. Conclusion 6. Impact Value Assessment 7. Appendices 8 Page 333 of 350
Page 334
2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Council: 2.1 Approves the Responsible Busking – Code of Conduct as set out in Appendix 1. 2.2 Agrees that the Code of Conduct be implemented on a non-licensing basis, supported through monitoring and enforcement by Council enforcement officers in partnership with Police Scotland. 2.3 Notes that the Code will be reviewed after an initial 12-month period to assess effectiveness and inform any future amendments. 3. Main Issues 3.1 Busking and street performance contribute positively to the vibrancy, culture, and economic vitality of city centres. When managed appropriately, busking can enhance the visitor experience and animate public spaces. However, the Council has received concerns from local businesses, residents, and visitors regarding noise levels, obstruction, and prolonged or repetitive performances in certain locations. 3.2 At present, there is no formal Code of Conduct in place to provide clarity for performers, businesses, and enforcement officers on acceptable standards of behaviour and operation. 3.3 Under Section 54 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, Police Scotland has powers to require a performer to stop if their activity is causing disturbance. The proposed Code of Conduct supports the proportionate use of these powers through clear expectations and guidance. 3.4 Balancing vibrancy with amenity The key challenge is balancing the positive contribution of busking with the need to maintain a pleasant and accessible city centre environment. 3.5 Noise and repetition Unregulated amplification, continuous noise, and repetitive performances can negatively affect businesses, residents, and other city centre users. 3.6 Pedestrian safety and accessibility Busking activity can, if unmanaged, restrict pedestrian movement, block shop entrances, or impact those with mobility or visibility impairments. Page 334 of 350
Page 335
3.7 Lack of clarity for performers Without clear guidance, performers may be unaware of acceptable locations, times, and standards, increasing the risk of complaints or enforcement action. 4. Proposals 4.1 It is proposed that the Council formally adopts the enclosed Responsible Busking – Code of Conduct, which sets out: • Permitted days and times for busking • Noise restrictions, including a 50-metre audibility limit • Controls on amplification and drumming • Designated busking zones and time limits per location • Clear expectations around obstruction, safety, and behaviour 4.2 The Code establishes two designated busking zones within the city centre, with only one performer permitted in each zone at any one time. 4.3 The approach is deliberately non-licensing, reducing administrative burden while enabling officers to address issues quickly and proportionately. 4.4 Council enforcement officers will continue to monitor city centre activity and engage with performers to encourage compliance, escalating to Police Scotland where required. 4.5 Consultation (appendix 2) A public consultation was published from 29th April to 8th May. Summary of results: 182 responses (8 business responses) 75% enjoyed buskers 80% agreed to implementing a busking code of conduct 65% agreed with the proposed busking zones 62% agreed with the permitted days and times 69% agreed with other restrictions 5. Conclusion 5.1 The proposed Responsible Busking – Code of Conduct provides a clear, balanced, and proportionate framework for managing busking activity in the city centre. 5.2 The Code supports cultural vibrancy while protecting public amenity, accessibility, and business interests. 5.3 Adoption of the Code will provide clarity for performers and stakeholders, reduce disputes, and support consistent enforcement. Page 335 of 350
Page 336
6. Impact Value Assessment (link to follow) 7. Appendices 7.1 Appendix 1: Responsible Busking Code of Conduct 7.2 Appendix 2: Consultation Report Page 336 of 350
Page 337
Appendix 1 Responsible Busking – Code of Conduct Perth and Kinross Council Perth and Kinross Council recognises the vibrancy and positive contribution that buskers and street entertainers bring to the city centre. To ensure performances can be enjoyed by everyone, buskers are asked to comply with the following Code of Conduct. This Code has been developed to prevent busking from: Becoming intrusive or a nuisance (for example through loud, continuous, or repetitive noise) Obstructing pedestrians, businesses, or city centre residents Under Section 54 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, Police Scotland may require a busker to stop performing if the performance is causing disturbance. Failure to comply may result in referral to the Procurator Fiscal and seizure of equipment. Code of Conduct Busking is permitted Monday to Saturday, 10:00am – 6:00pm, and Sunday, 12:30pm – 5:00pm. Noise (music, instruments, or voice) must not be so loud that it can be clearly heard at a distance of 50 metres. Amplification must not be used unless prior permission has been granted by Perth and Kinross Council. Drumming must only form a minor part of any performance. Perth and Kinross Council has two designated busking zones: Zone One - Between Next (111-119 High Street, PH1 5NU) and Marks & Spencer, (75-85 High Street, PH1 5TJ) – 89 Meters from location one to location two. Zone 2 – King Edward Street, outside Debenhams. High Street Location 1 to Waterstones (King Edward Street, PH1 5UX) – 93 meters from Location to one to Waterstones Only one performer or act may perform in each zone at any one time. A performer must not perform for longer than two hours in any one location and must not return to the same location for at least three hours. Performers must not obstruct the free passage of pedestrians or vehicles (including pavements and pedestrianised areas), nor allow an audience to do so. 8 Page 337 of 350
Page 338
Access to shops and premises must be kept clear at all times. Street furniture (including lampposts, benches, and bins) must not be used. No signs inviting payment may be displayed. The sale of merchandise, including CDs or DVDs, is not permitted. Busking must not take place near bank ATMs, due to the risk of obstruction or perceived intimidation. Performers must immediately stop performing if requested to do so by a police officer or council enforcement official. The appearance and quality of the act should demonstrate a positive intention to entertain passers-by. Performances that solicit money through sympathy are not permitted and may be required to stop. Perth and Kinross Council enforcement officers monitor the city centre throughout the day and will challenge any buskers found to be in breach of this Code of Conduct. This Code of Conduct will be reviewed annually to ensure it remains up to date and effective. Revisions may also be made at any time in response to legislative changes, organisational needs, or identified issues. Page 338 of 350
Page 339
Page 1 Responsible busking - code of conduct: Summary report This report was created on Tuesday 19 May 2026 at 09:41 and includes 198 responses. The activity ran from 29/04/2026 to 18/05/2026. Contents Question 1: Are you a: 1 About you 1 Question 2: If you answered 'Other' please provide more details below. 2 Why no ask for training support advice 2 Question 3: If you are a city centre business, please provide your business name and address below. 2 Business info 2 Question 4: Do you enjoy buskers in Perth city centre? 2 Do you enjoy hearing buskers in Perth city centre? 2 Question 5: Tell us a bit more about why you do, or don't, enjoy buskers? 2 Tell us a bit more about why you do, or don't, enjoy buskers? 2 Question 6: Do you agree that Perth and Kinross Council should implement a Responsible Busking Code of Conduct in Perth city centre? 2 Do you agree that Perth and Kinross Council should implement a Responsible Busking Code of Conduct in Perth city centre? 2 Question 7: Tell us a bit more about why you answered question number 6 the way you did. 2 Tell us a bit more about why agree or disagee with code of conduct 2 Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed busking zone areas in the city centre? (Next store to Marks & Spencer in High Street. The former Debenhams to Waterstones in King Edward Street.) 3 Do you agree with the proposed busking zone areas in the city centre? 3 Question 9: If you answered 'No' please tell us why. 3 No - proposed zones 3 Question 10: Do you agree with the days and times busking would be permitted? (Monday to Saturday, 10:00am – 6:00pm, and Sunday, 12:30pm – 5:00pm. 3 Do you agree with the days and times busking would be permitted? 3 Question 11: If you answered 'No' please tell us why. 3 No - days and times 3 Question 12: Do you agree with the other restrictions (one busker per zone with a two-hour time limit, not returning for three hours.) 3 Do you agree with the other restrictions (one busker per zone with a two-hour time limit, not returning for three hours.) 3 Question 13: If you answered 'No' please tell us why. 4 No -restrictions 4 Question 14: Do you think there would be any challenges with implementing the code of conduct? 4 Do you think there would be any challenges with implementing the code of conduct? 4 Question 15: What positives (if any) do you feel will come from implementing the Code of Conduct? 4 What positives (if any) do you feel will come from implementing the Code of Conduct? 4 Question 1: Are you a: About you Resident of Perth city centre Resident of the wider Perth and Kinross area Perth city centre business Other Not Answered 0 131 8 Page 339 of 350
Page 340
Page 2 Option Total Percent Resident of Perth city centre 54 27.27% Resident of the wider Perth and Kinross area 131 66.16% Perth city centre business 7 3.54% Other 13 6.57% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 2: If you answered 'Other' please provide more details below. Why no ask for training support advice There were 19 responses to this part of the question. Question 3: If you are a city centre business, please provide your business name and address below. Business info There were 10 responses to this part of the question. Question 4: Do you enjoy buskers in Perth city centre? Do you enjoy hearing buskers in Perth city centre? Yes No Not Answered 0 151 Option Total Percent Yes 151 76.26% No 47 23.74% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 5: Tell us a bit more about why you do, or don't, enjoy buskers? Tell us a bit more about why you do, or don't, enjoy buskers? There were 185 responses to this part of the question. Question 6: Do you agree that Perth and Kinross Council should implement a Responsible Busking Code of Conduct in Perth city centre? Do you agree that Perth and Kinross Council should implement a Responsible Busking Code of Conduct in Perth city centre? Yes No Not Answered 0 158 Option Total Percent Yes 158 79.80% No 40 20.20% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 7: Tell us a bit more about why you answered question number 6 the way you did. Tell us a bit more about why agree or disagee with code of conduct There were 176 responses to this part of the question. Page 340 of 350
Page 341
Page 3 Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed busking zone areas in the city centre? (Next store to Marks & Spencer in High Street. The former Debenhams to Waterstones in King Edward Street.) Do you agree with the proposed busking zone areas in the city centre? Yes No Not Answered 0 126 Option Total Percent Yes 126 63.64% No 72 36.36% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 9: If you answered 'No' please tell us why. No - proposed zones There were 84 responses to this part of the question. Question 10: Do you agree with the days and times busking would be permitted? (Monday to Saturday, 10:00am – 6:00pm, and Sunday, 12:30pm – 5:00pm. Do you agree with the days and times busking would be permitted? Yes No Not Answered 0 124 Option Total Percent Yes 124 62.63% No 74 37.37% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 11: If you answered 'No' please tell us why. No - days and times There were 79 responses to this part of the question. Question 12: Do you agree with the other restrictions (one busker per zone with a two-hour time limit, not returning for three hours.) Do you agree with the other restrictions (one busker per zone with a two-hour time limit, not returning for three hours.) Yes No Not Answered 0 136 Page 341 of 350
Page 342
Page 4 Option Total Percent Yes 136 68.69% No 62 31.31% Not Answered 0 0.00% Question 13: If you answered 'No' please tell us why. No -restrictions There were 66 responses to this part of the question. Question 14: Do you think there would be any challenges with implementing the code of conduct? Do you think there would be any challenges with implementing the code of conduct? There were 157 responses to this part of the question. Question 15: What positives (if any) do you feel will come from implementing the Code of Conduct? What positives (if any) do you feel will come from implementing the Code of Conduct? There were 145 responses to this part of the question. Page 342 of 350
Page 343
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Perth and Kinross Council Date of Meeting: 17 June 2026 Report Title: Update to Scheme of Administration Report Number: 26/178 Report Author: Scott Hendry, Democratic Services Manager Organisational Lead: Lisa Simpson, Strategic Lead – Legal and Governance ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update members on the previous decision by Council to create additional Area Committees in the Highland, Strathmore and Strathearn areas in addition to the existing Kinross-shire Committee. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Context 4. Proposals 5. Conclusion 6. Impact Value Assessment 7. Appendices 2. Recommendations It is recommended that Council: 2.1 Approves the revisions to the Council’s Scheme of Administration as set out in section 4 of the report. 2.2 Appoint Conveners and Vice-Conveners for each of the new local area committees in the Strathearn, Highland and Strathmore areas. 9 Page 343 of 350
Page 344
3. Background/Context 3.1 As part of the decision on the budget for financial year 2021/22, the Council agreed to set up a local area committee for the Kinross-shire area on a pilot basis. In August 2023 it was agreed that the area committee would continue on a permanent basis, and in financial year 2023/24 it was further agreed as part of the budget setting process that local area committees would also be created for the Strathearn, Highland and Strathmore areas. The terms of reference for the Kinross-shire Committee are set out in the Council’s Scheme of Administration (section 36, page 40). 3.2 Over the past two years, services across the Council have strengthened how local insight informs both policy and delivery. This has led to a more consistent approach to engagement and a clearer expectation that community perspectives shape decision-making. 3.3 Engagement with community councils has remained active, both individually and collectively, with officers attending meetings to address local issues and provide updates on key matters such as road safety and local projects. In parallel, the Fairer Futures model has been established across six priority areas, identified through evidence of poverty and inequality. This supports more coordinated, place-based working by bringing together services, partners and communities to build local capacity, resilience and confidence in participation. 3.4 The Community Planning Partnership has also been strengthened, with partners working more collaboratively and using data more effectively to target inequalities. Communities have been supported to develop Local Place Plans and Community Action Plans, enabling them to articulate priorities and influence future planning and service delivery. 3.5 These developments reinforce a clear shift away from uniform approaches to engagement. Earlier models, including the Local Action Partnerships introduced in 2015, highlighted the risks of unclear purpose and inconsistent participation. As set out in Elected Member Briefing Note 056-25 these arrangements were discontinued in 2025. The current approach draws on the tested Kinross-shire Area Committee model, with Local Area Committees being rolled out on that basis across other localities. This is being implemented as a pragmatic, learning-led approach. Experience from the roll- out will be used to refine and develop the model over time, ensuring it remains grounded in local need while providing a clear and consistent framework for engagement and decision-making. Page 344 of 350
Page 345
4 Proposals 4.1 Therefore in line with previous Council decisions, it is proposed that area committees be set up for the Strathearn, Highland and Strathmore areas based on the existing terms of reference for the Kinross-shire Committee as set out in section 36 of the Scheme of Administration. The local ward members for each area would be voting members of the committee and a Convener / Vice-Convener requires to be appointed for each of the committees. Consultation would take place with relevant community councils on membership, in a non-voting capacity, similar to that of the Kinross-shire Committee, and venues / meeting dates would be established for the committees to begin meeting following the summer recess. 5 Conclusion 5.1 Council is asked to agree to the setting up of area committees for the Strathearn, Highland and Strathmore areas based on the existing terms of reference for the Kinross-shire Committee. 6. Impact and Value Assessment Not Applicable. 7. Appendices Not applicable. Page 345 of 350
Page 346
Page 346 of 350
Page 347
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Perth and Kinross Council Date of Meeting: 17 June 2026 Report Title: Update to Standing Orders Report Number: 26/179 Report Author: Scott Hendry, Democratic Services Manager Organisational Lead: Lisa Simpson, Strategic Lead – Legal and Governance ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to present members with a revised version of section 19 of the Council’s Standing Orders. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Context 4. Proposals 5. Conclusion 6. Impact Value Assessment 7. Appendices 2. Recommendations It is recommended that Council: 2.1 Approves the revisions to section 19 of the Standing Orders as set out in section 4.1 of the report. 3. Background/Context 3.1 The current Standing Orders of the Council are in place for the regulation of proceedings and business of the Council and its Committees / Sub- Committees. 10 Page 347 of 350
Page 348
4 Proposals 4.1 In relation to section 19 of the Standing Orders, it is proposed to make the following clarificatory changes surrounding the process for elected members who are not members of committees to address the Committee. The specific clarification is in relation to both committee and non-committee members who wish to address the Planning and Placemaking Committee and provides that those elected members may engage as part of the deputations process. 19.9 Subject to 19.10 and 19.11 below, with the consent of the Convener, any Councillor who is not a member of the Committee may address the Committee for up to 10 minutes on any agenda item affecting their ward area. The Councillor shall speak after any deputations from members of the public and before Committee members question officers. The Councillor may not take part in questioning or debate, sit with Committee members after addressing the Committee, or vote on the matter. 19.10 Standing Order 19.9 does not apply to meetings of the Licensing Committee, Local Review Body, Review Sub-Committee of the Learning and Families Committee, or Appeals Sub-Committee of the Finance and Resources Committee. Councillors who are not members of these bodies are not permitted to speak. 19.11 In relation to the Planning and Placemaking Committee, any Councillor, whether or not they are a member of the Committee, may request to make a deputation on an item of business affecting their ward area. In accordance with the Protocol for Deputations set out in Appendix 2, the Councillor may speak for up to 5 minutes, after which members of the Committee may ask relevant questions. The Councillor may not thereafter question officers, take part in debate, sit with Committee members, or vote on the matter. Where the Councillor making the deputation is also a member of the Committee, they must leave the meeting after answering questions and may return only once that item of business has concluded. 5 Conclusion 5.1 Council is asked to agree to the clarificatory changes to section 19 of the Standing Orders as set out above. Page 348 of 350
Page 349
6. Impact and Value Assessment Not Applicable. 7. Appendices Not applicable. Page 349 of 350
Page 350
Page 350 of 350