Agenda item

Members will review the progress made towards a Visitor Economy Strategy.

This update follows on from the joint meeting held 13 July 2022 with the Communities and Localism Select Committee on the Visitor Economy. As such, a small group of Communities and Localism Select Committee members will be present for the item.

Contributors:

Cllr Martin Tett, Leader

Cllr Clive Harriss, Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure

Cllr Rachael Matthews, Deputy Cabinet Member, Town Centre Regeneration

Richard Ambrose, Service Director, Economic Growth & Regeneration

Matthew Broadbent, Senior Economic Development Officer

Richard Dickinson, Tomorrow’s Tourism

Sophie Payne, Service Director, Culture, Sport and Leisure

Ruth Page, Culture & Leisure Services Development Manager

Philippa Batting, Managing Director for Buckinghamshire Business First

Lucy Dowson, Tourism Development Manager for Visit Buckinghamshire

The Chairman welcomed Cllr Rachael Matthews, Deputy Cabinet Member for Town Centre Regeneration, Cllr Clive Harriss, Cabinet Member for Culture & Leisure, Cllr Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration, Sophie Payne, Service Director, Culture, Sport & Leisure, Shabnam Ali, Head of Economic Growth, Matthew Broadbent, Senior Economic Development Officer, and Lucy Dowson, Tourism Development Manager for Visit Buckinghamshire, to the meeting.

The following points were highlighted from the presentation.

·        The Visitor Economy produced large economic benefits for the county and would be supported further through the Visitor Economy Strategy. The final strategy would be ready by November 2023.

·        Bucks domestic tourism had grown less than comparable counties (Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire) over the last decade. The County was mid-table in performance rankings for the Visitor Economy, sitting at 33^rd nationally for tourism day visits.

·        There were 7,772 visitor rooms in the county, 71% of these were in serviced operations, 19% non-service and 10% provided by campsites. There were 200 attractions in Bucks, with a ‘traditional’ asset base comprising historic properties and museums. These Hotels and attractions were generally clustered around the south of the county.

·        Visitors for the Ridgeway and Waddesdon were compared. It was noted that Waddesdon tended to attract visitors that were relatively local, with Bucks and surrounding counties. The Ridgeway drew visitors from much further away, and across the country, reflecting its status as a National Trail.

·        The consultation highlighted the residents and businesses perceptions of the visitor economy and tourism. Residents felt particularly positive about the benefits to the environment and local businesses, but they were concerned about the impact of litter. The response from businesses showed that 63% were smaller organisations with less than 10 employees, with 20% as registered charities.

·        Three key themes for Buckinghamshire’s visitor economy had been identified, these were Countryside, Walking & Cycling. Culture, Festival, Events & Film Industry. Local Food & Drink. Further large events held in Buckinghamshire would help improve the perception of the County as a place to visit.

·        Current economic & financial pressures were negatively affecting the Visitor Economy. It was noted the Visitor Economy Strategy would not be revenue intensive for the Council.

During discussion, comments and questions raised by the Committee included.

·        In response to a question regarding comparative local authorities, it was noted that Hertfordshire was particularly advanced in its approach to the Visitor Economy. They had chosen to outsource their Destination Management organisation as part of their strategy.

·        Buckinghamshire was ideally located near to London with accessible train links. This represented an opportunity for Bucks and related to the key themes from the strategy - walk, cycle, take time out and relax. There was an opportunity for expansion of glamping sites, which were especially popular among younger generations.

·        Cycle tracks were available from train stations to encourage visitors to access attractions. A particular challenge, compared to Oxford, was that attractions in Bucks tended to be spread across the county.

·        Advertising in airports and train stations in London were typically not feasible due to expensive fees. However, flyers were distributed to key destinations and hotels in London to encourage tourists to visit bucks. Various options had been explored to ensure the best value for money.

·        It was noted that Buckinghamshire was not necessarily associated with its notable tourist attractions. For example, Silverstone and Pinewood, while located in Buckinghamshire were not typically attributed to it. There was an opportunity to build on this as part of the Strategy.

·        Data would be available on number of cyclists coming to the county for formal events, but not readily available for smaller clubs that go out informally. Cyclists positively contributed to the visitor economy and were likely to have visited coffee shops and food premises within the county.

·        Online resources were typically used to research accommodation and attractions within Bucks. These were also cheaper for a businesses to develop than leaflets and advertisements at physical locations.

·        The consultation was shared widely with Community Boards where it would’ve been further circulated to community and residents groups.