Political View: Tourism Levy is too soon for Peterborough’s visitor economy
Although the changes in administration and the allocations of Chair and Committee positions removed some of my responsibilities, as a Councillor there are still many calls on my time, and the past week or so has seen several interesting commitments in the diary, writes Conservative Group deputy leader Steve Allen.
On Tuesday of last week, at short notice I was called as a substitute to sit on the LGA (Local Government Association) Culture Media & Sport Committee to stand in for a Conservative member who was unable to attend.
When short notice requests of this nature arise, it’s a time to be grateful for the advantages of Teams and Zoom options being available. The remote working option avoids a last-minute dash to fulfil the commitment, particularly relevant for London meeting as this was!
The agenda was diverse with items including Visitor Economy Strategy, and the proposed Introduction of Tourism Levy’s. This tourist tax—also called a visitor levy, bed tax, or occupancy tax proved to be the contentious issue
The levy is a fee charged to travellers when they stay overnight, enter certain destinations, or use specific tourism-related services, and as more Cities will be applying the tax it is important to understand its potential benefits and drawbacks.
A major advantage of a tourist tax is the generation of additional revenue for local governments. Popular destinations often face high costs associated with maintaining infrastructure, public spaces, and transportation systems that are heavily used by tourists. The tax provides a dedicated funding source that can help pay for street cleaning, waste management, cultural preservation, and environmental protection. This reduces pressure on local taxpayers, who might otherwise bear the financial burden of supporting services used primarily by visitors.
However, tourist taxes also come with disadvantages. One key concern is the possibility of discouraging visitors, especially those on a reduced budget. For destinations that are working to develop tourism such as Peterborough, even a small increase in costs may influence travellers to choose alternative locations. Tourism is a competitive market and higher costs which do not demonstrate obvious advantages could see a negative take up and diminished interest, resulting in reduced revenue for hotels, restaurants, and local businesses.
Another drawback is the complexity of implementing and enforcing the tax. It would no doubt fall on the local authority or the regional mayor to develop systems for collection, monitoring, and compliance — tasks that can be expensive and pile on costs for the administration.
Clearly a Tourism Levy would make sense for an established destination, and indeed help control the potential of overtourism, making Cambridge with its international draw an ideal candidate on both counts.
A tourist tax can serve as a valuable tool for funding public services, managing visitor numbers, and promoting sustainability. Yet it must be carefully designed to avoid deterring travellers, harming local businesses, or creating administrative burdens and in the case of Peterborough hampering the promotion of our city as a visitor destination.
We now have a live Tourism Initiative for the City, with efforts in place to boost the visitor economy with a new independent Peterborough Tourist Board and the launch of the "Discover Peterborough" website. The efforts to generate burgeoning visitor numbers do not need needless hurdles placed in the way.
The Visitor initiative, under the strapline "More than you imagine…", aims to promote the city's cultural, historic, and natural attractions to increase day trips and crucially increase overnight stays; so, let’s hold back on any participation with the bed tax until the initiatives in place are seen to bear fruit.