Exemptions
Will there be any exemptions to visitors paying the levy eg will children be exempt?
Children are not included as a separate exemption in the current draft proposal.
The levy is proposed as a charge per room or area per night rather than a per-person charge, so the number or age of the occupants would not usually alter the charge for that room or area.
The consultation is seeking views on the proposed exemptions, and respondents can suggest a different approach. No final decision has been made.
Over and above the national exemptions two additional exemptions have been proposed for Argyll and Bute:
- healthcare visits by islanders to the mainland of Argyll and Bute (including carer(s) accompanying vulnerable patients to appointments).
- outdoor education centres with a focus on young people, some of whom may come from deprived backgrounds, on residential trips).
Why are there no exemptions for people living and paying council tax in A&B, when they stay elsewhere in A&B for holidays or other reasons?
At present, the two proposed additional local exemptions are for island residents travelling to the mainland of Argyll and Bute for healthcare, including accompanying carers, and qualifying outdoor-education residential activity involving young people.
The Council recognises the wider argument that residents may need overnight accommodation for work, education, transport disruption, sport, culture, family responsibilities or access to services. A resident exemption could address some of those circumstances, but it would also affect income and require a reliable and proportionate way of confirming residency.
The consultation is the opportunity to say whether a general resident exemption, or further targeted exemptions, should be included.
Has there been any progress on NHS database access for assessing potential exemption cases?
The detailed operation of the proposed healthcare exemption has not yet been determined. Any process would need to be accessible and proportionate, protect personal information and avoid placing unnecessary responsibility on accommodation providers.
Paying upfront and claiming back is not acceptable for residents in poverty, often no access to reliable internet services. What proposals do you have to ensure additional discrimination is not applied to island residents?
The draft scheme currently proposes an additional local exemption for island residents travelling to the mainland of Argyll and Bute for healthcare, including carers accompanying vulnerable patients. It does not currently propose a general island-resident exemption covering sporting activity, cultural events, education, family visits or access to other services. However, no final decision has been made. The consultation specifically seeks views on exemptions, and responses can propose that the list should be widened.
We also recognise the concern that paying first and claiming reimbursement later could disadvantage people on low incomes or those who face digital-access barriers. The detailed operation of the proposed healthcare exemption has not yet been determined. If it is retained, the Council would need to develop a process that is accessible, proportionate, protects personal information and does not place unnecessary responsibilities on accommodation providers.
What visitor levy income would deliver
What would visitor levy income be spent on?
Proposals on how to spend the money, if the levy goes ahead, are a key question for consideration in the current consultation with responses welcome from visitors, residents and businesses.
Potential examples include:
- Enhanced visitor infrastructure and public realm improvements: public toilets, upgraded visitor car parks, visitor and motorhome waste-disposal, water refill points and other tourism facilities.
- Transport and access resilience: active travel links (paths and themed trails i.e. food trail) across Argyll and Bute.
- Visitor management and dispersal: destination-wide signage, single-track road etiquette campaigns and responsible camping messaging.
- Culture and heritage visitor projects: interpretation panels, Gaelic and local story trails, small heritage grants, events development and support for visitor-facing cultural programming.
- Net zero and nature-positive tourism: EV charging at visitor sites.
- Data-led destination management and marketing: target-market research, visitor-flow data, segmentation, and destination-sensitive campaigns linked to value, spread and season extension.
- Visitor experience development: support for dark skies, wellness, nature connection, food and drink, marine, heritage, culture, activity holidays, events and festivals.
- Upskilling and reskilling: visitor economy skills programmes, career pathways and workforce development (fair work) to support year-round employment.
- Community funding: community-led projects which deliver tangible sustainable outcomes for the visitor economy.
No decisions have been made on specific projects. The legislation requires any net proceeds to be used to support the visitor economy. The consultation asks for views on potential priorities, and if a scheme were introduced, advice would be taken from a Visitor Levy Forum before spending proposals were considered by councillors.
How does the Council expect the levy to help extend the visitor season?
If a levy is introduced, net proceeds could support destination-sensitive marketing, events, visitor experiences, infrastructure and activity designed to spread visits across locations and seasons. These are potential priorities rather than agreed projects. The effect would depend on the spending decisions made, with advice from a Visitor Levy Forum and approval by councillors.
Who decides on what the money raised is used for?
If a Visitor Levy Scheme were introduced, the money could only be used for purposes permitted by the legislation and which support the visitor economy.
A Visitor Levy Forum, which the legislation requires councils to establish if a scheme is introduced, would provide advice and recommendations on the use of the funding.
Ultimately, decisions on how the money is spent would be made by elected councillors through the Council's normal decision-making processes. Annual reports on income received and how it was spent would be published to ensure transparency.
What proportion of levy income will be ring-fenced for tourism support, marketing, heritage, culture, events or related activity, rather than used to address wider Council budget pressures?
If a scheme is introduced, all net proceeds must be used for purposes permitted by the legislation and to support the visitor economy. No final allocations or proportions have been agreed. Potential priorities include visitor infrastructure, marketing, heritage, culture, events, transport, skills and community-led visitor-economy projects. A Visitor Levy Forum would advise on the use of funding, with decisions made by councillors and annual reports published.
Will the money be spent in the area it is raised?
The draft scheme does not currently guarantee that every pound raised in a particular locality would be spent in that same locality.
How the benefits should be distributed across Argyll and Bute, including islands and rural communities, is an important part of the consultation. Any future spending framework would need to be transparent and demonstrate how different parts of the area benefit.
If a levy is introduced, the net proceeds must be used to support the visitor economy. A statutory Visitor Levy Forum would advise on the operation of the scheme and use of income, with spending decisions ultimately made by councillors.
How would a ley work in practice?
If a booking is for more than, say, 5 nights, would the levy be charged on the total number of nights or just the first 5?
Under the current draft Argyll and Bute proposal, the levy would apply to each chargeable night of the stay. No five-night cap is currently proposed.
The legislation allows a local scheme to specify its arrangements, and the draft remains subject to consultation. Respondents can therefore comment on whether a maximum number of nights should be considered within the commentary boxes provided, for example in response to the questions on the flat rate.
For self catering accommodation (e.g. a cottage) is the whole property a 'room'?
The draft proposal uses the statutory language of £5 per room or area per night. For conventional hotel or bed-and-breakfast accommodation, that would ordinarily relate to the room purchased.
The income modelling undertaken to date treats self-catering accommodation on a per-premises basis, but the precise scheme wording and operational guidance need to make that explicit if that approach is adopted.
What assessment has been made of the administrative and compliance burden on accommodation providers, particularly small owner-operated businesses?
The Council recognises that collecting, recording and remitting the levy would create additional work, particularly for small and micro-businesses. The 2026 legislation allows providers to retain an agreed share of the levy to help meet administration costs, and the draft is considering a 2% deduction, although this is not final.
An initial assessment of administration costs has been provided in the proposed Visitor Levy Scheme, section 6, Appendix 1, in the Council paper, 24th June 2026.
The consultation is seeking evidence on actual costs and support needs, and any scheme would require clear guidance, training and practical assistance.
How would the fixed rate be calculated and applied in practice, including whether it is based on nights, guests, rooms, properties or longer stays?
Under the current draft, the levy would be £5 per room or area for each chargeable night, rather than per guest. No cap on the number of nights is currently proposed. The draft scheme information is based on self-catering accommodation being on a per-premises basis. The final scheme wording and guidance would need to make the treatment of whole properties and other accommodation types explicit before implementation.
Please explain how this scheme would work for a self-catering provider, from booking to collection, exemptions, VAT, and recompense for providers
If a scheme is approved, the accommodation provider would be responsible for accounting for the levy. The provider would need to identify chargeable stays, apply the charge, keep appropriate records, submit returns and pay the levy due to the Council.
The 2026 legislation allows an accommodation provider to retain an agreed share of the levy collected to help meet administration costs.
The draft Argyll and Bute proposal is considering a 2% deduction, but that has not been finally agreed. We recognise that a percentage deduction may not fully reflect the costs faced by smaller and micro-businesses, and the consultation is seeking evidence about the support they may require.
The detailed local operating arrangements are not yet finalised. That includes the precise return process, integration with the national digital service, the treatment of local exemptions and the final approach to self-catering properties. Those details would need to be clearly settled and communicated well before implementation.
VAT is determined by UK tax legislation and HMRC, not by the Council. The current national position is that, for a VAT-registered provider, the visitor levy element forms part of the total amount charged for the accommodation and is therefore included when VAT is calculated. It is also included when assessing VAT taxable turnover. Providers should rely on HMRC or professional tax guidance on how that applies to their individual circumstances.
The Council recognises that this would create additional work for providers. If a scheme proceeds, training, guidance and practical support would therefore form an important part of implementation.
With the Scotland-wide scheme for remittance, can the Council guarantee that the submission format will remain stable and not change?
The Improvement Service has developed a national platform, which has now gone live in Edinburgh, to support the administration of visitor levy schemes. The Council cannot guarantee that the submission format will never change. Any changes would need to be communicated clearly, with sufficient guidance, testing and support for providers before they took effect.
What about platforms that make bookings for the calculations methods proposed (e.g. rooms is often not a metric available at the point of purchase)?
The national Improvement Service has developed a national platform, which has now gone live in Edinburgh, to support the administration of visitor levy schemes. More work is required on the suitability and cost for Argyll and Bute, if a visitor levy scheme is introduced.
How would accommodation providers manage bookings made through Booking.com, Expedia, tour operators, travel agents and bookings made well in advance, and who is responsible if the levy is collected incorrectly?
The accommodation provider would remain responsible for identifying chargeable stays, collecting and accounting for the levy, including where bookings are made through third-party platforms or well in advance.
The detailed treatment of advance bookings, platform collections, corrections and errors has not yet been finalised. If a scheme proceeds, clear rules, guidance and system arrangements would need to be in place well before implementation.
How will non-payment be enforced? If visitors refuse to pay the levy, has the Council consulted Police Scotland on whether this would be considered a police matter?
If an individual guest disputes or refuses to pay, the accommodation provider would initially deal with that as part of payment for the accommodation. The Council would not normally become involved in a point-of-sale disagreement between a guest and provider.
The Council’s statutory compliance role would principally concern providers’ returns, remittance and record-keeping; there is no indication in the existing national guidance that refusal by a guest would routinely be treated as a Police Scotland matter.
If a scheme is introduced, our approach would begin with clear guidance, training and practical support so that providers understand what is required.
The legislation also gives councils information-gathering and inspection powers and provides for penalties where a liable person fails to make a return, pay the levy, retain the required records or comply with an information requirement. Any enforcement approach would need to be fair, proportionate and follow the statutory process, including reasonable-excuse and appeal provisions. The intention would be to help businesses comply and resolve genuine mistakes wherever possible.
As a booking agent collecting the levy on behalf of owners, will compensation be available for debit or credit card fees incurred?
The 2026 legislation allows an accommodation provider to retain an agreed share of levy collected to help meet administration costs. The draft proposal is considering a 2% deduction, but this has not been finalised and no separate arrangement for card-processing fees has been agreed. Evidence from agents and providers on transaction charges and other costs should be submitted through the consultation.
Alternatives/additions to a visitor levy
Has changing the rates paid by property owners been considered as an alternative to avoid the administrative burden of a levy?
Council tax and non-domestic rates operate under separate national legislation and are not alternatives that the Council can redesign locally for the same purpose. The Visitor Levy legislation specifically allows a charge on overnight accommodation, with net proceeds used to support the visitor economy. The administrative burden of that approach is recognised and is being considered through the consultation.
If the levy goes ahead, could the Council create a portal for visitors to pay the levy directly?
Under the legislation, the accommodation provider is the liable person responsible for collecting and accounting for the levy. A visitor-payment portal would not remove that statutory responsibility.
The Improvement Service has developed a national platform, which has gone live in Edinburgh, to support the administration of visitor levy schemes. The detailed local operating arrangements would need to be confirmed if a scheme proceeds.
Why don’t you push back to Scottish government to have motor homes also paying this tax?
The Scottish Government has been considering introducing separate legislation to introduce the possibility of a levy for motorhomes that do not use campsite, aires, etc.
The Council can only apply a levy within the powers provided by the legislation. The legislation is based on chargeable overnight accommodation transactions. Questions about extending the scope of the levy beyond what is currently included in legislation would ultimately be matters for the Scottish Government and Parliament rather than individual councils.
The consultation
Why is the consultation being run again when just under 3/4s of folks rejected it last time?
That's a fair question and one we've been asked a number of times.
The reason the Council is consulting again is that the proposal being consulted on now is not the same scheme that was consulted on previously. The earlier consultation related to a percentage-based visitor levy because, at that time, the legislation only allowed councils to consider a percentage charge. Since then, the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2026 has changed the legal framework and introduced the option of a flat-rate levy.
As a result, the Council developed a revised draft scheme based on a flat-rate charge and, because this represents a materially different proposal, a further 12-week consultation is being undertaken.
The purpose is to give residents, visitors, businesses and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the revised scheme rather than simply relying on views expressed about the previous percentage-based proposal.
The previous consultation results remain part of the evidence available to councillors. However, it is important to consider views also on the revised flat-rate proposal before deciding whether to introduce a Visitor Levy Scheme, amend it further, or not proceed with it at all. No decision has yet been made. The consultation findings, impact assessments and wider evidence will all be considered before councillors reach a final decision.
The principal change is that the current draft proposes a flat £5 charge per room or area per night rather than the percentage-based levy consulted on in 2025. This option became available following the 2026 legislative changes. The revised proposal also includes proposed local exemptions and consideration of an accommodation-provider administration deduction. The previous consultation results remain part of the evidence, and no final decision has been made.
Who devised the consultation, and how will the Council assess whether there is support for the proposal without a yes/no question?
The consultation was developed by Council officers in discussion with the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum.
The Forum includes both Council representatives and a range of tourism and accommodation-sector representatives, providing an opportunity for industry stakeholders to comment on and influence the development of the consultation before it was launched.
In relation to the survey itself - the consultation was designed to gather views on specific elements of the draft scheme, such as the proposed levy structure, exemptions and potential use of funds, rather than beginning with a simple yes/no question.
However, respondents are also given an opportunity to state their overall view on whether a Visitor Levy Scheme should be introduced and to explain the reasons for that view.
Both the structured answers and free-text responses will be analysed and reported so councillors can understand the level and nature of support, opposition and proposed changes.
If respondents feel the survey structure made it difficult to express outright opposition to the proposal, that is itself valuable feedback which will be reported and considered as part of the consultation findings.
How can people respond meaningfully to the consultation if the details of how the levy will be implemented are not yet available?
The consultation sets out the draft rate, charging basis, proposed exemptions, indicative income and potential spending priorities so that people can comment on the main policy choices. Some operational details are not final because they will depend on the consultation outcome, the national digital service and any decision to proceed. Respondents are encouraged to identify where more detail is needed, as that is relevant evidence for councillors.
How will free-text responses be weighted against the design questions when consultation results are reported?
Free-text responses will be analysed thematically and reported alongside the quantitative results, including overall support or opposition, reasons given, evidence submitted and suggested changes. Councillors will receive both forms of evidence before making any decision.
What are the results to date on the £5 scheme?
The consultation is still open, so no final results are available at this stage.
Why has the consultation not been put on hold following Scottish Government news about council restructuring?
The consultation concerns the Council’s current powers and a revised flat-rate proposal made possible by the 2026 legislation. Announcements about possible future local-government restructuring do not change the Council’s present legal position or require the consultation to stop. No decision has been made on introducing a levy, and any relevant developments can be considered before councillors make a final decision.
Figures and economic impact
What information supports the calculation of the estimated £10 million income?
The estimate is based on the scale of paid overnight accommodation across Argyll and Bute rather than simply on the number of accommodation businesses.
The current model combines accommodation-capacity information with STEAM 2024 and VisitScotland data to estimate the number of chargeable room or area nights. At the illustrative £5 rate, that produced an estimated gross annual income of approximately £10 million. An estimated £1.5 million was then deducted for national and proposed local exemptions, giving an indicative £8.5 million before arrangements to support providers with administration.
The figures are not presented as a guarantee. They are modelling estimates based on published assumptions, and the Council recognises that people may disagree with those assumptions.
The consultation provides an opportunity for businesses and others to submit alternative evidence and estimates, which will be considered alongside the impact assessments before councillors make any decision.
Is there a published breakdown of expected levy revenue compared with the administrative cost to the Council and operators, and when will this be available?
The published modelling sets out the indicative gross income and the estimated reduction for exemptions. The detailed cost of administering the scheme for the Council and accommodation providers has not yet been finalised, as this depends on the operating model, national digital service and support arrangements. If a scheme progresses, those costs and the resulting net proceeds would need to be set out clearly before implementation and reported transparently thereafter.
An initial assessment of administration costs has been provided in the proposed Visitor Levy Scheme, section 6, Appendix 1, in the Council paper, 24th June 2026.
Has the Council modelled the impact of a flat £5 charge on lower-cost accommodation and value-conscious visitors?
The Council recognises that a flat £5 charge represents a larger proportion of a lower-cost stay and could affect value-conscious visitors differently. The draft impact assessment considers possible effects on demand and spending, but there is not currently sufficient evidence to predict the impact reliably for each price point or accommodation type. The consultation is seeking specific evidence from providers and visitors to inform that assessment.
What proportion of annual levy income is expected to be paid by residents?
The Council does not currently have a reliable estimate of the proportion that would be paid by Argyll and Bute residents. A general resident exemption is not included in the draft, although proposed local exemptions include certain healthcare-related stays by island residents. Actual receipts would depend on residents’ overnight stays, the final exemptions and the operation of any scheme.
Why compare Argyll and Bute to other busy tourist destinations, we are a fragile rural economy, not Edinburgh or the Bahamas?
Visitor levies exist in many parts of the world including rural areas and cities. Argyll and Bute is a unique destination with significant tourism numbers that have placed pressure on public and tourism infrastructure with ongoing service requirements.
We're not suggesting Argyll and Bute is the same as Edinburgh, Glasgow or any international destination. The reason examples are sometimes referenced is simply because visitor levies operate in many different places and can provide lessons about how schemes are designed and administered.
We are seeking views specifically on what a visitor levy might mean in the context of a rural and island area rather than assuming experiences elsewhere would automatically apply here.
National legislation
Why are you taxing the holiday letting sector again?
National Governments place taxes on the hospitality sector and other sectors of the economy. The Scottish Government provided legislation to enable councils to consider the possibility of a visitor levy. The council took the decision to explore this option. No decision has been made to introduce a levy.
The Visitor Levy is not a tax on accommodation providers. Under the legislation it is a charge paid by visitors purchasing overnight accommodation, with accommodation providers responsible for collecting and accounting for it on behalf of the local authority. We do recognise that this creates additional administrative responsibilities for businesses, which is one of the points being explored through the consultation.
Why is the consultation continuing when the Scottish Government has announced plans for a major reorganisation of local authorities?
The Council is proceeding because the consultation concerns a materially different flat-rate proposal made possible by the 2026 legislative changes, rather than a repeat of the previous exercise. Consulting now allows residents, visitors and businesses to provide evidence on the revised proposal before councillors decide whether it should proceed, be amended or not be introduced. Any wider restructuring of local government is a matter for the Scottish Government and does not remove the Council’s current statutory powers or responsibilities.
Economic impacts
What economic impact assessments have been undertaken to consider the potential cost of the levy to the local economy?
The draft impact assessment considers possible effects on visitor demand, overnight stays, visitor spending and accommodation businesses. The Council cannot currently provide a reliable single figure for the net cost to the local economy because the outcome would depend on visitor behaviour, the final rate, exemptions and how levy income was reinvested. Further evidence from businesses and other consultees will be considered before any decision is made.
What analysis has been completed on the economic viability of touring parks after the introduction of flat rate levy, which could be over 20% of the pitch price? Along with VAT at 20% staff and other overhead costs do you expect to see a reduction in the amount of touring pitches available and the closure of some touring parks to focus on holiday home rentals and holiday home sales?
Please be clear, there has been no decision made on the introduction of a flat rate levy.
The Council recognises that a flat charge can represent a higher proportion of the accommodation price for lower-cost stays, including some touring pitches. That is an important issue within the consultation.
The draft impact assessment identifies potential effects on demand, visitor spending and accommodation businesses, but the Council does not currently have evidence that allows it to predict how many pitches might be withdrawn or whether particular parks would close or change their business model.
We would welcome specific evidence from touring-park operators on pitch prices, occupancy, margins and likely responses. That information will help councillors assess whether the proposed rate and structure are appropriate, whether they should be modified, or whether a scheme should proceed at all.
What will be the net negative impact on overnight stays and GVA?
The Council cannot presently give a reliable single figure for the net impact on overnight stays or GVA.
The potential effect depends on visitor responses, the final rate, accommodation prices, exemptions and how levy income would be reinvested. The Council’s impact assessment will therefore need to consider both possible displacement or reduced visitor spending and the potential benefits from additional investment in the visitor economy.
The consultation is part of gathering that evidence. Any final report to councillors will be clear about what can be quantified, the assumptions used and where uncertainty remains.
How does the Council reconcile the earlier £9.2 million estimate with the current £10 million gross / £8.5 million net figures, and why does the internal review state that the detailed methodology is “not held”?
The figures relate to different stages and different versions of the proposed scheme, so they are not directly comparable.
The earlier £9.2 million estimate related to the previous percentage-based proposal and drew on independent work undertaken during development of that scheme. The current consultation concerns a different proposal, a flat-rate levy, which only became an available option following the 2026 legislative changes.
For the revised proposal, the Council undertook updated modelling using accommodation-capacity information together with STEAM 2024 and VisitScotland data. The published modelling estimates approximately £10 million gross income from a £5 per room or area per night levy. It then makes an estimated reduction of approximately £1.5 million for national and proposed local exemptions, producing an indicative figure of approximately £8.5 million before any deduction or support arrangement for accommodation-provider administration.
The reference to the detailed methodology being ‘not held’ concerned the underlying working methodology of the earlier University of Edinburgh exercise. The Council held the results supplied from that work, but not the University’s detailed underlying model.
For the current flat-rate proposal, the Council has published its own assumptions and calculations in the April and June 2026 Council papers.
These remain estimates rather than guaranteed income. Actual receipts, if a scheme were introduced, it would depend on matters such as the final rate, the scope of exemptions, chargeable accommodation capacity, occupancy and compliance.
What information supports the rationale for introducing a £5 charge?
The £5 figure is an illustrative flat rate within the revised draft scheme; it is not a final decision. The proposal reflects the new legislative option for a flat-rate levy and modelling of chargeable room or area nights across Argyll and Bute. The consultation is specifically seeking evidence on whether that rate and structure are appropriate, including their effect on different accommodation types and price points.
How do you address concerns that for every £1 raised in levy it costs the wider economy £1.40? Would you instead consider increased rates/council tax as a simpler scheme – based on the feedback from operators in other areas?
People are entirely entitled to challenge the assumptions and calculations used by the Council. If consultees believe there are alternative figures, evidence or impacts that should be taken into account, we would encourage them to submit that information through the consultation process so it can be considered alongside all other responses.
What evidence do you have that adding £5 per room per night will not reduce bookings, shorten stays or cause visitors to choose competing destinations outside the Highland Council area?
Argyll and Bute is not in the Highland council area and as such we need to consult on our own range of questions.
The Council is not claiming that a £5 charge would have no effect on bookings, length of stay or visitor choice.
The likely impact may differ between accommodation types, price points and parts of Argyll and Bute eg a £5 charge will represent a larger proportion of a low-cost stay than a higher-priced stay.
The purpose of the impact assessment and consultation is to help councillors weigh the possible effect on demand and visitor spending against the potential benefit of investing the net proceeds in facilities and services that support the visitor economy.
No decision has been made. Evidence of impact of the proposal should be submitted through the consultation. and will form part of that consideration.
Other
Why do you think this will free up housing and why haven’t you invested in housing in any significant way?
The council has not said the introduction of the visitor levy will free up housing. The delivery of housing is hugely complex and there are many reasons why many areas of the UK lack housing choice.
The primary purpose of a Visitor Levy is not to free up housing. The purpose set out in legislation is to raise funding that can be invested in supporting and enhancing the visitor economy. Housing issues have formed part of wider discussions in Argyll and Bute, but a Visitor Levy should be assessed on its own merits rather than viewed as a housing policy in itself.
Why can attendees not speak in these webinars?
The webinar format was chosen to allow as many people as possible to participate in a structured and consistent way, while ensuring questions can be answered by council officers and recorded accurately. The webinar is only one part of the wider consultation process and people are encouraged to submit detailed comments and evidence through the consultation channels as well.
Why do senior officers push through what some view as flawed agendas? And do elected councillors listen to their constituents?
It is appreciated that some people feel very strongly about this issue and may disagree with the assumptions, modelling or conclusions set out in the draft scheme.
It's important to distinguish between the role of officers and the role of elected members. Officers are responsible for developing options, providing professional advice, carrying out consultation and presenting information and evidence to councillors. Councillors are responsible for making the decision on whether a Visitor Levy Scheme should be introduced, modified or rejected.
Where there are various points to consider in a situation, it’s not always possible to agree with every view given and every response received. One of the reasons we are undertaking this consultation is to allow people who support the proposal, oppose the proposal, or have concerns about particular aspects of it to make those views known before any decision is taken.
People are entirely entitled to challenge the assumptions and calculations used by the Council. If consultees believe there are alternative figures, evidence or impacts that should be taken into account, we would encourage them to submit that information through the consultation process so it can be considered alongside all other responses.
Ultimately, no decision has yet been made.
