Agenda and minutes

Prior to the commencement of Business, the Vice Chair, Councillor Ross Moreland advised that the Chair, Councillor Jim Lynch would be joining the meeting late and therefore it had been agreed that the Vice Chair would Chair the meeting of the Short Life Working Group.

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest intimated.

Short Life Working Group on Argyll and Bute Visitor Levy held on 30 October 2024

The Minutes of the meeting of the Short Life Working Group on Argyll and Bute Visitor Levy held on 30 October 2024 were approved as a correct record.

Councillor Jim Lynch joined the meeting during the consideration of the following item of Business.

The Chair welcomed Members of the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum to the meeting; Morag Goodfellow of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Cathy Craig of Wild About Argyll, and Ross Pollock of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park.

Members of the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum were invited to share their reflections on the Consultation Report.

Ross Pollock thanked the Short Life Working Group for the invitation to attend and advised that he was pleased to be part of the Forum. He advised that the National Park Authority were defined as a statutory consultee in the legislation and he had been delighted to see the outcome of the consultation. He advised that he had made a submission to the consultation on behalf of the National Park Authority and had worked closely with the National Park Destination Group who had redrafted the Argyll Tourist Strategy taking into account the potential impact of a Visitor Levy. Mr Pollock noted that the consultation had shown strong opposition in terms of all responses with the residents’ percentage higher than in other areas which he said may have been be due to the make-up of the area and the necessity of travel; he advised that he respected the findings of the consultation. He advised that a flat rate was something they were aware of other authorities calling for and there was a question for Scottish Government to revise legislation across the National Park area and Argyll and Bute. He highlighted that short term let licensees were particularly close to the VAT rate threshold and that there were smaller communities with a high level of day visitors and no overnight stays that wouldn’t be paying into any levy pot, and the levy would therefore have a disproportionate impact on some areas.

Morag Goodfellow advised that she was pleased to be invited to share her reflections. She advised that the overall report summarised responses in a thorough manner, with a breakdown across three categories. There had been strong opposition on all three categories with various reasoning outlined in the report which had been in line with HIEs idea of the current situation. She advised that the report had been very comprehensive and that the modelling had also been very comprehensive which may be quite difficult for the lay person to get their head around. She said that Argyll has a strong visitor sector, that there was no under-represented part of Argyll and Bute and there was a need to be reflective on the importance of the sector. She advised that the visitor economy flip side was that the economy remained strong but it required investment; and with public sector funds no longer as available, the need to ensure the tourism product is strong was a consideration. She highlighted that exemptions and vat threshold were important considerations as well as the island perspective advising that the island only authorities were currently pausing the process. She advised that the approved schemes in cities had introduced the scheme with the premises retaining a small portion of the levy which was another consideration.

Cathy Craig advised that she echoed the comments of the other two Shadow Visitor Levy Forum members. She advised that the business community had answered the consultation robustly and had expressed their fears; she advised that there was a requirement to invest and there was a need to find that from somewhere. She highlighted the fragility of the tourist sector post covid with 45% of businesses operating with around 3 month cash reserves. She advised that there were some businesses doing well, but some were not with a shrinkage of domestic visitors due to the cost of living, for example some staying 3 nights instead of 4 or some who may be visiting places but not spending as much on eating out. She said that there remained strong proposition for America but that Kintyre and Mid Argyll did not benefit so much from American visitors. She referred to other regional challenges such as the A83 and the ferry situation affecting communities and asked that the potential unintended consequences were given consideration. She highlighted that the consultation had given opportunity to lean into ongoing dialogue with businesses regarding funding, and to work jointly with businesses to approach challenges. She requested that the opportunity to lean in, listen and create effective dialogue was not missed.

David Adams McGilp from Visit Scotland had joined the meeting during discussion of this item and advised that colleagues had made similar observations to him and he had nothing further to add. He said that whether or not the Levy was introduced now or in the future it would impact regional property and residents across Argyll and Bute and it was important to consider this over the long term.

Councillor McKenzie advised that it had been helpful to hear from the members of the Shadow Forum. She advised that to her, the results of the consultation were a red light and it was clear that the Levy was opposed in its current form and that it would cause damage to island and rural economies. She said that the risks of pressing ahead outweighed the assurances and she could not see how the Council could move forward with confidence. She suggested that an approach would be to pause, collaborate and work with communities. She confirmed that she was not opposed to a levy but it had to be right for Argyll and Bute.

Councillor Horn advised that everything that had been said matched the concerns she had and which had been raised to her. She said that a responsible decision would be to pause until the Council got answers to questions raised. She advised that she was not opposed to a levy but it needed to be more robust than what was proposed at the moment and questions required to be answered.

Councillor Mulvaney advised that he had noted what had been said before and the shadow levy forum reflections. He advised that in terms of the overall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Economic Growth

The Short Life Working Group gave consideration to a report providing a copy of the Argyll and Bute Visitor Levy Consultation Report as per the agreed Terms of Reference of the Short Life Working Group on Argyll and Bute Visitor Levy.

Members discussed the options in terms of any recommendation which could be made to the Council meeting on 24^th September 2025.  During the discussion it was agreed that the detailed minutes of the SLWG meeting should be included with the report being submitted to Council to enable the comments made by Members of the SLWG and the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum to be taken into consideration.

Decision

The Short Life Working Group agreed to –

1.    note receipt of the full Visitor Levy Consultation Report appended to the submitted report;

2.    refer consideration of the Visitor Levy Consultation Report to the Argyll and Bute Council meeting on 24 September 2025; and

3.    recommend that Council note the detailed Minutes of the Short Life Working Group on the Visitor Levy held on 15 September 2025.

(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 8 September 2025, submitted)