Highland Council has voted to put its proposed draft Visitor Levy out to a 12 week public consultation.

Whatever your view, this is the stage when it is important that Highland residents get involved.
That does not mean that a levy has been introduced. Councillors will make a further decision after the consultation, taking account of the responses received and other relevant information.

But this is an important stage in the process.

The proposed scheme covers the whole Highland Council area and could create a significant new source of income for the Council. It could also affect Highland residents staying overnight elsewhere in Highland, accommodation businesses, communities experiencing visitor pressures and how the money raised is ultimately spent.

 

So, whatever you think about the principle of a Visitor Levy, the proposed £5 charge, exemptions or how the money should be used, this is the opportunity to put your views directly to the Council before the final decision is made.

Do switch on the meeting recording and tune in like the radio. You don't need to watch it, just listen and hear for yourself how councillors spoke up about concerns raised by Highland residents.

Make a coffee. Do the housework. Sit at your desk. Walk the dog.

There was considerable discussion around the economic assessment, Highland residents paying the levy, exemptions, the proposed rates and how the income could be used.

Hearing the discussion for yourself is useful. You get to hear the questions and concerns raised by councillors, rather than relying on snippets from social media or headlines.

One of the biggest questions arising from the decision is why the Council has chosen to proceed now when an independent Economic Impact Assessment has not yet been published.

This is not an assessment which has suddenly been suggested should be carried out.

Highland Council commissioned it.

In June, councillors agreed that the Diffley Partnership, working with the Fraser of Allander Institute, would undertake an Economic Impact Assessment of the new fixed rate Visitor Levy options.

The Council said the assessment would provide comparative data and findings against the earlier assessment of a percentage based levy, and anticipated that it would be completed in autumn 2026.

The timing is therefore worth questioning.

The proposed levy model has changed substantially from the earlier percentage based proposal. The Council commissioned independent economic research to assess the new options, but councillors have now decided to put the proposal out to consultation before those findings are available.

One amendment at the meeting sought to delay proceeding until the independent assessment was available. It was not carried.

That is a reasonable question for Highland Council to answer.

This is not about saying that consultation should not happen. It is about whether people responding to the consultation should have access to all the evidence the Council itself commissioned to assess the economic consequences of the new proposal.

If the EIA is completed while the 12 week consultation is running, will it be published immediately?

Will consultees be notified?

Will people be given an opportunity to consider its findings and add to or amend their responses?

Those are questions worth asking.

The Council's June report specifically said that the new EIA would provide comparative evidence against the earlier economic assessment.

That makes it particularly relevant to a consultation on a substantially different charging model.

And while all the discussion around the levy was taking place, the discrepancy in the Council's own draft proposal remained unresolved.

The main proposal says the levy would operate for nine months of the year, excluding December, January and February.

That means March to November.

The same March to November period is also stated in Appendix 4, Section D.

However, Section 6.19, dealing with discretionary exemptions, says that the proposed low season exemption would mean the levy would not apply from 1 November to 31 January inclusive.

Those two statements do not agree.

If November is excluded, the levy would operate for eight months rather than nine.

It is worth noting that a shorter charging period was itself discussed during consideration of the proposal, so the precise dates are not an insignificant detail.

Yet despite the discussion and attention surrounding the draft proposal, the discrepancy between the sections was not noted or addressed during the meeting.

It may simply be a drafting error, but if residents are being asked to comment on the proposal, it seems reasonable that the Council should make clear which dates it actually intends to use.

There were two separate votes during the debate. On the first, 24 councillors voted for the motion, 12 for the amendment and 28 abstained.

On the subsequent substantive vote to proceed with the consultation, 36 councillors voted in favour and five abstained.

The figures relate to separate votes and should not be combined.

The current draft proposes:

• £5 per room or accommodation area per night for most hotels, guest houses, B&Bs, short term lets and similar accommodation.
• £2 per night for hostels, campsites and caravan parks.

The Council estimates the scheme could generate around £9.8 million a year, although that remains an estimate.

The proposed income would be divided broadly between:

• 50% for visitor infrastructure and services
• 20% for culture, heritage and events
• 15% to help communities benefit from tourism
• 15% for business development, skills and workforce support.

These percentages are indicative rather than a final spending commitment.

There are also proposed exemptions, arrangements for collection by accommodation providers, administration costs and governance arrangements.

All of these form part of the proposed scheme and can be commented on during the consultation.

One issue which received attention during the debate was whether Highland residents themselves should be exempt when staying overnight elsewhere within the Highland Council area.

Under the current draft, there is no general exemption for Highland residents.

An amendment sought to introduce an exemption for Highland residents and also proposed directing 25% of levy income towards housing. It was not carried.

That does not prevent residents from raising the issue during the consultation.

If you believe Highland residents should be exempt, say so.

If you think they should not be exempt, say so.

If you think exemptions should apply in particular circumstances, say that too.

The current proposal follows the statutory consultation carried out between 15 November 2024 and 31 March 2025.

That earlier proposal was based on a percentage charge and generated considerable discussion and opposition to aspects of the proposed model.

Feedback from accommodation providers and the wider industry raised concerns about the complexity of a percentage based system, with providers expressing a preference for a flat rate.

Highland Council subsequently sought greater flexibility from the Scottish Government.

Changes to the legislation now allow councils to use a fixed amount, or a range of fixed amounts, as well as a percentage based charge.

So the proposal now going out to consultation is not simply the previous scheme coming back unchanged.

It has been substantially reworked.

And that is another reason why this consultation matters.

The previous consultation helped change the proposal. This one can influence what happens next.

The Council says the purpose of a Visitor Levy is to raise additional funding from overnight visitors which can be used to develop, support and sustain facilities and services used by visitors, while supporting sustainable tourism and local communities.

The proposed spending split gives the largest share, 50%, to visitor infrastructure and services.

The remaining proposed allocations cover culture and heritage, community benefit and strengthening the visitor economy.

The consultation gives residents the opportunity to consider whether those priorities are right.

If tourism creates particular pressures in your community, what should levy income be used to address?

Should more money go towards toilets, parking, roads, litter, waste, public transport or visitor management?

Should communities experiencing the greatest visitor pressures receive greater benefit?

Should housing pressures associated with tourism feature more prominently?

These are all legitimate questions to put to the Council.

Tuesday's vote was a decision to consult, not a decision to introduce the levy.

The statutory consultation will run for 12 weeks.

Afterwards, councillors will consider the responses and other relevant information before deciding whether to proceed. If they ultimately decide to implement a scheme, there would then be an 18 month implementation period.

So there is still scope for the proposal to change.

But that depends on people engaging with the process.

You don't have to know whether you support or oppose a Visitor Levy before responding.

You might support the principle but disagree with £5.

You might support a levy but want Highland residents exempt.

You might think the money should be spent differently.

You might want more of it going directly into communities.

You might want the independent economic assessment published before deciding what you think.

Or you might simply have spotted something in the proposal which you believe needs changing.

All of those are valid reasons to respond.

What matters is that those views are actually submitted.

This is the point at which Highland residents' voices need to be heard.

Read Highland Council's full Visitor Levy proposal

Consultation link: To be added when Highland Council publishes the consultation.