Agenda item

The Panel will receive a presentation on this item at the meeting.

Jim Oribine, Visit Bath introduced this item to the Panel by giving them a presentation. A copy of the presentation can be found on the Minute Book and as an online appendix to these minutes, a summary of the presentation is set out below.

A Destination Management Plan (DMP) for Bath and North East Somerset (2017 – 2022)

The DMP is a roadmap for stakeholders in tourism in Bath and North East Somerset

It marshals the evidence, considers the issues and seeks to provide a robust, realistic and forward looking plan in a succinct and clear document which partners can endorse.

Methodology 

·  Process managed by Bath Tourism Plus on behalf of B&NES.

·  Steering Group comprising representatives from the public sector and private sector businesses.

Consultation & Research

·  Wide consultation with individuals, sector groups, and B&NES councillors

·  An enterprise survey with local tourism businesses

·  Site visits to observe key facilities and services in the city and the surrounding area

Evidence Base

·  The performance and economic impact of tourism in Bath and North East Somerset, including visitor profiles

·  Competitor analysis

·  The policy context for tourism – locally, regionally and nationally

Significance of the visitor economy

·  An estimated 9,358 people employed in tourism across B&NES, around 10% of total employment

·  The total annual expenditure associated with tourism trips to the B&NES area is £436.09m

·  6.2% average annual increase in direct spend by domestic staying visitors in recent years

DMP Proposition

·  An overarching Vision for the destination

·  5 Aims for tourism development in Bath & North 
  East Somerset

·  5 Strategic Objectives as a framework for action

·  A series of Priorities for Action

The Vision

“Bath fully delivers on its potential as an iconic visitor destination on the international stage; a vibrant 21st century spa and wellbeing resort that capitalises on the city’s cultural heritage, World Heritage Site status and its connections with the surrounding rural landscape.”

Aims

·  To strengthen the local economy and spread prosperity throughout Bath and North East Somerset by growing the year-round value of tourism in a sustainable manner

·  To strengthen the appreciation and conservation of Bath as a World Heritage Site together with the area’s wider historic, cultural and natural assets

·  To foster and sustain distinctive high quality local businesses

·  To enhance the quality of life of local residents, through improved facilities, services, environment and experiences

·  To provide visitors with a high quality and fulfilling experience, encouraging longer stays and more return visits

Target Visitor Markets

·  Domestic short breakers – with an emphasis on Sundays -Thursdays when there is capacity in all parts of the sector

·  Overseas visitors – with an emphasis on European markets France and Germany, and long-haul USA

·  Day visitors – from home & on holiday elsewhere, eg London

·  Family market - wanting a rural holiday with family-friendly attractions, events and activities and/or to visit Bath

·  Local residents and those visiting friends and relatives

·  Business tourism

Strategic Objectives

·  Compelling promotion: To present Bath and the rest of North East Somerset, its distinctive assets and facilities, as an internationally renowned, must-explore destination to the identified target markets.

·  Connectivity and dispersal: To improve access to and within the city and surrounding rural areas, facilitating orientation and exploration.

·  Celebrated heritage: To conserve, enhance and celebrate the outstanding heritage, ambience and setting of the city and local market towns and villages.

·  Diversified product: To enhance the range, quality and appeal of the product offer across the destination.

·  Effective partnership: To ensure that all stakeholders are working in partnership and secure support for the delivery of the strategy.

Further Consultation

·  Residents groups  FoBRA, TARA

·  3600 residents of Bath & North East Somerset, using B&NES annual resident Voicebox Survey

·  Town councils

·  Members of BTP and Bath Bid, and local Chambers of Commerce – Bath, Keynsham & Somer Valley

Nicholas Tobin, Vice-Chairman, FoBRA addressed the Panel. A copy of his statement can be found on the Minute Book and as an online appendix to these minutes, a summary is set out below.

We were concerned to note that no Bath Councillors formed part of the Strategy Group that developed the draft Plan. Had they been, city residents’ interests would have been served, but they were not.

As one of the most important stakeholders in Bath, FoBRA should have been a member of the strategy group from the start and, albeit belatedly, we now welcome the invitation to participate in the further formulation of the plan.

There should be more explicit recognition of the importance for the character of the city of retaining a vibrant residential population in central Bath, as set out in the Placemaking Plan.  Residents are mentioned at various points, but not as a critical element in the equation, which they are.

There should be a proper discussion of what 'sustainable development' means.  There are references at various points to negative impacts of tourism, there is even recognition of a threat from a negative reaction by residents to tourism.  These thoughts are brought together to a degree, but this should be developed fully as a major policy element – when is enough enough? 

While the Plan recognises that Bath has a serious traffic problem which affects visitors and a poor public realm, this should be developed into a call for urgent implementation of the Transport Strategy and the Public Realm & Movement Strategy.

Coaches are a major contributor to congestion, pollution and general loss of amenity and the Plan refers to a separate coach parking strategy, but this currently seems to be based on the premise that the city should basically accommodate whatever the coach operators want. Instead, we should ask tough questions like: do we actually want to encourage coaches that only stay for less than 3 hours, which comprise two-thirds of the total? 

Some good actions are tabled, but the final one must include local residents amongst ‘key stakeholders’ – after all, do we not own most of the World Heritage Site Key Features, and does its appearance not depend largely on residents maintaining their properties at their own cost.

Communication with local residents is essential, but this must be a 2-way process.

The Chairman thanked Nicholas Tobin for his statement on behalf of the Panel.

Councillor Fiona Darey asked if he had any further comments to make regarding what FoBRA feel would recognise as sustainable development.

Patrick Rotheram replied on behalf FoBRA by drawing the Panel’s attention to 5.4.4 of the Plan which stated that 500 new hotel bedrooms in the City will open soon. He said that no extra parking facility had been identified and questioned how long it would be before the City became empty of residents.

Councillor Barry Macrae queried how many FoBRA members had family employed in tourism and felt that the overall numbers relating to tourism employment in the presentation were underestimated. He added that the Council were endeavouring to grow the economy of the City and that the benefit to residents of tourism is vast.

Nicholas Tobin replied that he did not have any information regarding the employment of FoBRA family members and that he does recognise the importance of tourism.

Councillor Lisa O’Brien commented that she shared some of the concerns raised in relation to public engagement and the role of coaches within the City. She called for the Plan to be taken forward robustly and suggested a focus be given on promotion of the Spa, Bath Rugby and our hinterland.

Luke Emmett addressed the Panel. A copy of his statement can be found on the Minute Book and as an online appendix to these minutes, a summary is set out below.

On the whole I think the Plan does make a lot of sense but perhaps requires a little more thinking about the future vision of Bath (and how it may change because of technology and lifestyle changes etc) and could be bolder and more ambitious.

1.2 - Methodology - I'm not aware of any of the smaller artistic cultural orgs being consulted on this Plan. I think, if it is really to show a snapshot of Bath and the cultural offer here then there should be consultation and involvement from them which has been lacking in the past with the focus being primarily on the bigger orgs.

2.3.4 - Why are these events and festivals not achieving this? I would argue that it is because the visibility of them in Bath is restricted because of issues around the displaying of posters and banners etc throughout the city. When a festival is on in Bath, as a tourist you currently would not know this. There are easy ways to rectify this - using Edinburgh Fringe as example - they allow the promotion of the festival across the city. Simple things like triangular Periaktoi created using corrugated material with posters printed on and then stood around lamp posts can make a huge difference. The fringe festival in Bath used to have pyramids that advertised the festival across the city. If we really want to promote culture as a tourist option then you have to find ways to make the events visible across the whole city. Bath is currently failing to do this.

One other solution - there are lots of empty shops in Bath. Theatre companies and arts organisations take advantage of this (with the support of the Council) and fill shop windows with show posters, photos, information etc. Why could this idea not be rolled out across the City to support all cultural tourism? That way it would increase visibility of events and attractions and would also go some way in disguising the fact that there are so many empty shops. If we can find a way to utilise the spaces that we have it can only be of benefit to the City as a whole.

A single information website. This has been discussed for some time but nothing has ever really materialised. We desperately need one single point of information in Bath and I believe that should be the VisitBath website and app. I worked for Wiltshire Arts Promoters and helped them launch the Wiltshire Loves Arts website which is directly linked to the VisitWiltshire website. On the backend of the site there is an application you can enable which allows users to upload their own events and content. I would also like to see links from this site to the other listings, venues and bloggers sites about Bath. This would give visitors a greater choice, help local events and venues market themselves and highlight Bath as a cultural city.

Bath as a brand - needs to focus more on Bath in 10 years. What will the offer look like then? I understand that a lot of our marketing is based around the Roman Bath's and WHS but Bath should also promote the future and not be stuck in the past. It has much more to offer than just the Roman's - I think this is perhaps where this plan lacks ambition and vision.

Residents as tourists and consumers - should not be over-shadowed by the promotion of facilities like the Roman Bath's etc. It is as important to advertise Bath and it's events to those who live here and spend money here all year around.

Core values: A vibrant, creative and exciting city with a contemporary 21st century vibe - Bath is nowhere near this yet. We do not feel contemporary and we are certainly not exciting. There are pockets which produce this (such as Bath Carnival, Bedlam Fair and Party in the City) but in reality these will become fewer and fewer as the impending arts cuts really hit those organisations producing this work. Investment is needed to help get us anywhere near aligning with this statement.

The Events Strategy and Cultural and Creative Strategy should be key to this plan. However without investment I'm not sure how relevant they will become. It needs proper and meaningful consultation with arts and cultural organisations and also those who are tasked with trying to create the work with no support or funding from the Council.

In three years’ time the next round of Arts Council National Portfolio funding will come around. Currently in Bath we have one NPO organisation based in Midsomer Norton. Bristol have over 20. We should be aiming to get more organisations within the National Portfolio and bringing much needed funding to Bath. What impact could this have on this strategy and also will B&NES be in a position to support those organisations as they will have an impact on tourism within the city?

The Chairman thanked Luke Emmett for his statement on behalf of the Panel.

The Divisional Director for Development informed the Panel that consent is in place for the use of lampposts and banners for advertising. She added that any alterations to shops that were classified as Listed Buildings would require Listed Building Consent and Advertisement Consent would be required to display any adverts.

Councillor Fiona Darey asked if the cost of advertising was a barrier to some organisations.

Luke Emmett replied that the costs were high for smaller organisations. He reiterated his view that a single point of information for events in Bath was required.

Councillor Colin Blackburn commented that he was aware of the use of WhatsApp in another City to notify of events.

Luke Emmett replied that the use of social media would be advantageous to some demographics, but not all.

Jim Oribine stated that section 5.4 of the Plan looks at how to develop an events strategy that establishes the overarching aims and objectives for events and festivals in Bath and North East Somerset. He said that information and data about events would be issued through a majority of channels. He added that he was happy to involve Mr Emmett further as this area of the Plan progressed.

Councillor Colin Blackburn commented that in some cases Bath needs to be highlighted over other local destinations such as Glastonbury Tor and Longleat.

Jim Oribine replied that this was an area they intend to address.

Councillor Fiona Darey said that she had sometimes heard Bath described as beautiful yet dirty.

Jim Oribine replied that he appreciated that this was an important aspect to address.

The Divisional Director for Community Regeneration commented that the work of the DMP must be seen in context and can’t resolve all issues. He added that other work streams and strategies are in place to tackle issues such as street cleaning and transport.

Councillor Barry Macrae stated that alongside the need to promote tourism the Council has a responsibility to its residents. He called for web advertising fees to be fair for all organisations and for the City competitors with Bath to be analysed appropriately. He said that he felt that the Plan was heading in the right direction, but said that the worth of the work should be explained to the residents.

The Chairman asked what the timescales were for the Plan and who owned it.

The Divisional Director for Community Regeneration replied that it was to be a five year plan and it would be owned by the Council, Business Improvement District and Bath Tourism Plus.

The Chairman asked if the DMP would be considered by Council or the Cabinet at any point.

The Divisional Director for Community Regeneration replied that the DMP was not a statutory document, but he would be happy to discuss the most appropriate sign off process for the DMP outside the forum of this meeting.

Nicholas Tobin asked the best way in which FoBRA could pass on their more detailed comments regarding the Plan.

Jim Oribine replied that he would arrange to meet with Mr Tobin and discuss the concerns and views that FoBRA have.

The Chairman thanked the members of the public and the Panel for their comments and contributions to the debate.