The Committee is asked to consider the Visitor Economy Strategy.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and the Economy and Community Services Manager have been invited to attend for this item.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, the Interim Head of Economy and Community Services and the Economy and Community Services Manager to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration introduced the report and referred to the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee’s Leisure and Tourism Task and Finish Group.  He explained that producing the document had been a complicated exercise and a number of officers across the Council had been involved.  He added that the document was a framework, not a strategy, and highlighted the small tourism budget.  Lastly, he explained that the pattern of tourism was changing and Swale Borough Council (SBC) wanted to lead rather than react and improved marketing and intelligence was needed.  The Interim Head of Economy and Community Services said that SBC were working with a number of external partners. 

The Economy and Community Services Manager explained that the framework reflected the three distinctive geographical areas in Swale; that the estuary and coastline were the main theme; and that the five year action plan would respond to the six themes within the framework as outlined on page 5 of the document.

A Member welcomed the document, which he considered had potential and included many positive aspects of the Borough, but highlighted that rural villages were not included. He asked about the Council’s current heritage strategy and how Members could become involved in encouraging tourism?   In response, the Economy and Community Services Manager explained that heritage was a significant part of the economy and work was on going with Planning Services.  She added that the Cambridge Model was a useful tool to monitor success and the Visit Kent website also looked at measuring specific areas.

A Member welcomed the initiative and spoke of the diverse areas in Swale.  He said that marketing the area was very important and that visitors might visit Swale for a variety of reasons so more lateral thinking was required.  Another Member agreed that there should be a more clear identification as many people did not know where Swale was.  She added that more investment in tourism was required; suggested that cycle routes should be encouraged; and added her support that rural villages should be marketed.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration advised that whilst there were some issues with the Visit Kent website, it provided good networks and links for only a small fee. 

A Member said that the document was heading in the right direction but commented that it lacked detail and gave examples of some rural tourist attractions that could be included such as Oad Street Craft Centre, Borden.  He warned that some proposed actions might require infrastructure improvements which were out of SBC’s control and asked if there had been benchmarking against other Kent districts?  In response, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration advised that more work was required and there was regular monitoring of ‘hits’ on the website.  The Economy and Community Services Manager advised that there had been one to one meetings with other Kent districts and the document was high level but would include action plans, priorities and timescales.

There was a discussion amongst Members and the following points were raised:

·         The document is what the public wanted, different audiences required different documents;

·         funding should be used as a launch pad for match funding;

·         photographs in the document should contain place names;

·         coastal paths should be included;

·         ‘Swale’ needed to be more identifiable and

·         more ‘fun’ activities and events should be included to help attract returning visitors.

Members suggested removing the word ‘’widely” from the first line under Our Visitor Economy on page 4 of the document and to delete reference to ‘a limited knowledge of our consumers’ in the final paragraph on page 5 of the document.

Our priorities

A Member agreed with the six priorities on page 5 of the document and asked how SBC would deliver the priorities and was it in control of is ambitions?  In response, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration said that liaison with other departments and keeping a tight grip would help pull everyone together but some issues were out of their control.

In response to a suggestion from a Member that SBC needed to identify where their market was and how far people would travel to visit, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration agreed and spoke of attracting visitors interested in film locations in the Borough.

A Member suggested assisting local businesses to encourage visitors to stay in local hotels and bed and breakfasts.

There was a discussion around the usefulness of maps for visitors and the following suggestions were made:

·         specific maps to be produced for specific events or interests, for example railways, estuaries, boatyards and film locations in the Borough;

·         maps/directories to plan visits and include cycling/walking routes in addition to public transport;

·         maps to be added to website and updated regularly and

·         the use of the SBC app to suggest themed walks with maps.

A Member spoke of attracting visitors to the ferry scheme from the Isle of Sheppey to Southend whilst another suggested boat connectivity between Faversham and the Isle of Sheppey.  A Member warned that, due to tidal issues, Harty Ferry was not viable and also pointed out that some residents might object to developing some areas for tourists as this may lead to demand for improvements in infrastructure if traffic increased.

Other ideas from Members to encourage tourism included:

·         the use of coastal and other paths;

·         providing facilities such as play equipment and changing rooms and more facilities for the disabled;

·         improved signage including information boards with maps; and

·         encouragement of private businesses to set up like those on the seafront at Whitstable.

A Member said that the priorities were right and he looked forward to the outcomes.

Outcomes

The Chairman suggested that the wording in the last bullet point under Public Realm and Place Shaping on page 8 of the document should be clarified. 

In response to a question from a member, the Economies and Community Services Manager clarified that the Welcome Programme included training opportunities and information businesses needed to develop and sustain.

A Member suggested changes  to the wording on page 9 of the Framework, 2^nd bullet point under the heading Developing the cultural offer,  to take out Sittingbourne, Faversham and the Isle of Sheppey and replace with ‘the Borough’, and add ‘and villages’ to bullet point 4.  Another Member suggested including ‘Heritage’ in the heading and the Economies and Communities Manager agreed to look at the wording.

A Member said that there were lots of community groups in Swale that didn’t know where to go for support or where to advertise their activities.

There was a brief discussion around incorporating historical legendry culture and the promotion of local dialect.

In response to a question from a Member on Sittingbourne’s relationship with its twin town Ypres, the Economies and Community Services Manager said that the relationship had flourished through the Centenary years and would be maintained post 2018.

A Member said that Swale was not as seasonal as some other areas as there were opportunities for activities such as walking or birdwatching all year round.

There was a discussion on the measuring of performance and the Interim Head of Economies and Communities advised that there were monthly updates to Cabinet, and welcomed input from the Policy Development and Review Committee at significant points in the future.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration thanked Members for their input.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, the Interim Head of Economies and Communities and the Economies and Community Services Manager. 

Recommendations to Cabinet:

(1)   That greater prominence be given to rural areas in the Framework;

(2)   That further consideration be given to how businesses are assisted to help promote Swale as a place to stay;

(3)   That the maritime theme be developed and promoted;

(4)   That the current and future relationship with Sittingbourne’s twinned town of Ypres be included in the Framework;

(5)   That updates on performance measuring of the Framework be provided to Members and further input from the Policy Development and Review Committee be considered at significant points of the process;

(6)   That the current budget of £250,000 be increased to £500,000;

(7)   That further consideration be given to the implications of food and food networks and how Swale Borough Council could work more effectively with Kent food providers.