Consultation and Engagement Hub

We asked members of the public, visitors to Edinburgh and business to give us their views of a draft visitor levy scheme for Edinburgh between 20 September 2024 - 15 December 2024. We collected feedback through a variety of different methods, including an online survey, in person workshops, one to one conversations and drop by points in the city.

A visitor levy is a payment based on the cost of most types of paid, overnight accommodation. Most people paying to stay for an overnight visit to Edinburgh will have to pay the levy.

We received 4,517 responses to the online survey and many additional comments through other engagement methods.

• Area covered (the whole City of Edinburgh Council boundary) – consultation results demonstrate broad agreement.
• Duration of scheme (indefinitely) - consultation results demonstrate broad agreement. However, there were concerns raised around stays after the commencement of the scheme but booked during (especially the early stages of) the implementation period.
• Percentage rate (5%) – most residents (56%) agree with this level whereas most businesses (51%) and visitors (62%) do not support a levy at all or think it should be lower. 42% of businesses have expressed support for this level though, and in engagement sessions several participants have commented that this is a ‘reasonable and competitive’ level. The questionnaire results show that 31% of residents think the levy should be higher, but this is strongly opposed by visitors and businesses. It is acknowledged that, in most cases, a 5% levy would result in an overall increased cost to the visitor of 6% on the price they pay for accommodation, as VAT is added to the levy. This, combined with other concerns raised around the economic landscape since the start of the consultation (with inflation remaining high and the cost of living still an issue) combined with the higher operational costs for businesses leading to potential wider price increases indicates that a higher levy could be a deterring factor for visitors.
• Objective of the scheme – consultation results demonstrate broad agreement, but some comments were received around the inconsistency of wording between the objectives and the spending programme.
• Cap on number of nights (Seven (7) nights) – consultation results demonstrate broad agreement, but some comments suggested that this should be set lower. VisitScotland’s submission suggested that setting the cap at fewer nights would have a minimal impact on revenue generation (although difficult to quantify, the University of Edinburgh have estimated that there would be an approximate reduction in income of £440,000 from a five (5)-day cap compared to a seven (7)- day cap) but could encourage more visitors to stay for longer. Festivals Edinburgh have made a similar observation around how this would have a positive benefit to performers and workers during the festivals, as they often stay for longer periods of three to five weeks.
• Type of accommodation included (all except campsites) – while there was broad agreement on this, there were also many who disagreed/strongly disagreed with the notion of exempting campsites, especially in engagement sessions and written submissions, where the rationale for this was frequently questioned and comments often stated that visitors are visitors regardless of whether they stay in a camp site or in a hotel.
• Concerns were raised by individuals, as well as in the consultation open text comments and via emails, about organisations such as Ronald McDonald House and Ciaran’s House who provide accommodation for family members of young people undergoing long-term hospital treatment. Equally, there was concern raised around charitable accommodation providers who are specifically providing accommodation for other charities and only charge a small fee in order to cover operational costs.
• Process for individual exemptions and/or exclusions (reimburse payments already made rather than exempt upfront) – consultation results demonstrate broad agreement in that the Council is best placed to manage this ,but concerns were raised around individuals being ‘out of pocket’ and around potential complexities with the refund process making it difficult for people to apply.
• Decision on use of funds of the scheme (Visitor Levy Forum to make recommendations to the relevant executive Council Committees and final decision on overall spending programme taken by the Council as part of the financial decision-making framework) – consultation results demonstrate broad agreement.
• Administration costs – this was not consulted on but came up in several discussions. It is broadly accepted that the Council will require to cover its costs for administering the scheme, but several stakeholders requested that a breakdown of these costs is included within the accounts which will be published annually (as per the Act).
• Use of net proceeds (2% on participatory budgeting, £5m on housing, then the rest split on 55% city operations and infrastructure, 35% culture, heritage and events and 10% destination and visitor management) – consultation results demonstrate broad agreement around the themes proposed with varying levels of support for individual themes.
• The survey shows that most residents (70%) and businesses (51%) are happy with the proportion allocated to participatory budgeting (PB) or think more should be spent on this, whereas visitors support other priorities such as culture, heritage and events or destination and visitor management (more than half (62%) of visitors say that ‘less or no money should be spent on PB’, or they don’t know). Engagement responses on this point have been overall positive, but several respondents commented that it is crucial that the requirements of the legislation are still met, i.e. PB spend still needs to ‘sustain, support or develop things that are substantially for or used by visitors’. There have also been queries around why this is 2% and not a fixed amount as that would make the PB process easier and more transparent to manage, but other comments were received around how this should remain a percentage to ensure proportionality.
• Most residents are happy with the proportion allocated to housing or think more should be spent on this (76%), whereas 61% of visitors and 59% of businesses say that ‘less or no money should be spent on housing’, or they don’t know. Again, several comments have been made around how this will need to meet the requirements of the legislation (i.e. to ‘sustain, support or develop things that are substantially for or used by visitors’). Living Rent Scotland and Unite Hospitality have suggested that a larger proportion of the funds (£9.1m) should be dedicated to this theme and with all or most of it on social housing. Several businesses have commented that while they can see the link to the benefit for visitors when making mid-market homes available to those working in the visitor economy, they are largely not supportive of the use of the funds for social homes and cannot see how this would comply with the legislation.
• Regarding the thematic spend, most residents are happy with the proportion allocated to city operations and infrastructure or think more should be spent on this (81%). On the other hand, businesses and visitors indicate that they support other priorities more (60% of visitors and 55% of businesses saying that less or no money should be spent on city operations and infrastructure, or that they don’t know). Engagement results are along the same lines, but with businesses somewhat more supportive in discussion. There is a strong sentiment from both residents and businesses that this should focus on enhancing the place experience and, as such, be additional to services and operations already in place, with Essential Edinburgh calling for base level data, showing the 2025/26 investment in each area.
• Most residents (58%) think that the proposed proportion is right, or that more should be spent, on culture, heritage and events, however, 34% of residents think less, or no, money should be spent on culture, heritage and events. 69% of businesses and 54% of visitors think that this is the right amount or that more should be spent on this. There is a recognition that the city has a strong offering in this sector and that this needs to be supported, however there is also some sentiment that there is a need to reduce reliance on it. One respondent said: “The festivals in Edinburgh bring in huge amounts of income for the city already, often at the expense of locals. We need to invest in ensuring the destination is set up for seasonal spread.”
• Businesses are most supportive of the destination and visitor management allocation, with 73% saying this is the right amount or that more should be spent on this and many commenting during engagement about how this should have a greater proportion allocated. Most residents (52%) think that this is the right amount or that more should be spent on this and 49% of visitors think that this is the right amount or that more should be spent on this theme. There is a common (mis)conception that this theme is primarily about city marketing and, while a well-known travel booking site highlights in their response that “destination marketing will be essential to counteract the effect of the levy on demand and to ensure that the levy is sustainable in the longer term”, many respondents (especially residents) feel there is less need for marketing support, but there is strong support for supporting sustainable tourism measures and Fair Work within the industry.

The draft scheme was amended to take account of feedback from the consultation and the recommended final scheme is set out in detail in the report to full Council meeting. An indepth analysis of the survey results can be found in Appendix 2.4.4 of the report.

The final scheme retains most of the principles which were agreed by Committee on 22 August 2024. Where updated or amended recommendations were made, these were outlined, with a summary of the rationale provided. A further explanation of the reasoning behind each parameter can be found in Appendix 3.4.5.

The Council decided to approve and implement a visitor levy in Edinburgh at a full Council meeting held on 24 January 2025.  The levy will become live from 24 July 2026, but will apply to all stays booked on or after 1 October 2025 for this period.

Read more information on the Edinburgh visitor levy.

Every year the City of Edinburgh Council consults its tenants regarding the Housing service.  With a five-year rent strategy approved by the Council in February 2024, this year’s consultation asked tenants for their views on how their rent is spent and what their key investment priorities are. 

Tenants were presented with six core investment commitments that the Housing service want to deliver and were asked to rank them in the order they think they should be prioritised, and to provide comment on their ranking and/or the investment priorities.

Tenants were also asked if they were aware of the five-year rent strategy agreed last year and to provide any additional comments they may have about the rent strategy.

Finally, with many tenants still experiencing financial pressures because of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, the consultation asked if tenants had found it more difficult to pay their rent in the last 12 months.  Where applicable, tenants were also asked about their experiences when seeking advice and support.  Suggestions for improvement were sought from all respondents on how we could do more in terms of financial advice and support.

We received 773 responses through our online and postal survey, which equals just over 4% of all Council tenants.

Tenants were given six investment priorities and were asked to rank them in order of preference.  The result was as follows:

1^st - Deliver and improve housing management and repairs and maintenance services

2^nd - Build more new social rented homes

3^rd - Improve energy efficiency standards of existing homes and meet net zero targets

4^th - Deliver improvement in mixed tenure blocks to make them more warm, modern and secure

5^th - Improve wider estates for areas surrounding our homes

6^th - Support and enable large scale regeneration of strategic importance to the city

Additional comments made by tenants on their investment priorities showed that there was strong support for upgrading properties both inside (windows, kitchens, boilers etc) and outside (gutters, harling etc).  Improvements to the repairs service, better insultation, and dealing with damp/mould issues were also popular themes identified by the consultation.

68% of tenants who responded to the consultation were not aware of the approved five-year rent strategy.  The additional comments to this question showed many tenants felt that rent increases should be linked with property conditions.

The consultation also found that 39.8% (308) of the respondents had found it more difficult to pay their rent over the last 12 months, and 39.8% (124) of them had sought advice or help to assist with paying the rents.  For those who had sought advice or help, nearly 40% were very or fairly satisfied that the assistance they received met their needs.

To improve this advice and help, tenants said that it was important to make people aware of the support available, with better communication and better accessibility.  Tenants said that help should also be provided to those tenants who do not get benefits, and personal circumstances should be taken into account when help is given or not. 

(*Please note, not all tenants answered all of the questions)

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Strategy 2025-26 to 2034-35 was considered by City of Edinburgh Council at its budget meeting on 20 February 2025. 

At the budget meeting, Councillors agreed to increase rent by 7% in 2025/26, which is the second year of the five-year rent strategy agreed by the Council in last year’s budget, and to continue with the rent increase assumptions for the following five years from 2029/30 to 2033/34.

Council also agreed to continue to help with the ongoing cost of living challenges experienced by tenants by increasing funding for the Tenant Hardship Fund, to help support tenants experiencing financial hardship.

And in line with the consultation results, Council agreed that investment priority should be given to improving existing homes.

For your views on proposals to introduce street trees along both Priestfield Road and Prestonfield Road, and install new footway build-outs at various locations to provide greater footway space and reduce crossing widths. We also wanted to hear your views on proposals to improve the rear entrance to Prestonfield Primary School by closing a section of the road between Clearburn Road and Clearburn Gardens to all vehicles, except refuse vehicles serving Clearburn Road.

We received 322 responses to the online survey.

Street trees

• 69% of the survey respondents are in favour of installing new trees along Priestfield Road and Prestonfield Road.
• 24% of the survey respondents raised concerns about installing new trees, specifically along Priestfield Road.
• 7% of the survey respondents shared no opinion.

Road closure outside Prestonfield Primary School

• 64% of the survey respondents agreed with closing a section of Prestonfield Road and making improvements outside the school.
• 13% of the survey respondents disagreed with the proposed closure of the section of road outside the primary school.
• 23% of respondents shared no opinion.

Based on the overall responses, there was very positive feedback for the introduction of new street trees and particularly for improving safety at the rear entrance to Prestonfield Primary School. There was also a lot of support for introducing footway build-outs, shortening crossing points and resurfacing both roads.

However, concerns were raised on the following:

• Long-term maintenance of any new tree pits and fallen leaves.
• Removal of parking specifically along Priestfield Road.
• Restricted visibility and sight lines due to the planting of new trees.
• Proposed tree pits being located too close to entrances.

Based on the feedback we received, we will:

• Revise the overall design by relocating or removing certain tree pits to suit various requests and eliminate any problem areas.
• Consult further with road safety, active travel, and accessibility groups to ensure measures for all user groups are considered and incorporated.
• Consult further with Parking colleagues to ensure a balance is reached between providing adequate parking provision and installing new tree pits, particularly along Priestfield Road.
• Work with emergency services to ensure any new design accounts for their accessibility requirements.
• Continue to work with tree officers and landscape architects to ensure any new species of tree are suitable for their proposed locations.
• Start the relevant statutory procedures for traffic orders.

Future Event

We are also planning a local in-person event, where members of the public will be able to view the final design plans and discuss any other matters further. Details for this event will be communicated to all residents once the design plans are finalised.