Visitor economy
Question VE 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards the visitor economy, as set out in VE 1 'Visitor economy' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
37 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for a visitor economy policy | A clear majority of respondents express support for having a strategic policy on the visitor economy, recognising its importance to the borough’s economy, identity and employment base, subject to appropriate safeguards. |
| Need to protect heritage, landscape and character | Strong emphasis is placed on ensuring visitor economy development conserves and enhances heritage assets, historic environment, landscape character and local distinctiveness, with concern about visual, landscape and setting impacts. |
| Caravan, camping and touring sites – scale and location | Mixed views are expressed on caravan and camping sites. Some respondents support small-scale, well-managed sites in suitable rural locations, while others seek stricter limits to prevent over-proliferation and landscape harm. |
| Traffic, parking and congestion impacts | A recurring concern is the impact of visitor attractions on traffic, parking and congestion, with calls for these issues to be addressed before additional visitor growth is supported. |
| Climate change, sustainability and transport emissions | Two respondents highlight the need for the visitor economy to align with climate change objectives, including concerns that car-dependent tourism, caravanning and camping may conflict with carbon reduction goals. |
| Town centre focus and sustainable locations | Support is expressed for directing major visitor attractions and accommodation towards town centres and accessible locations to reduce car dependency, support regeneration and align with national highways and signage strategies. |
| Rural tourism and small-scale accommodation | Some respondents support carefully managed rural tourism, including small-scale accommodation (B&Bs, barns, glamping) linked to walking, cycling and green tourism, provided impacts are controlled. |
| Walking, cycling and green tourism routes | Support is expressed for greater recognition and promotion of walking and cycling routes such as the Sandstone Trail, River Weaver paths and canals as key components of the visitor economy, alongside improved facilities and signage. |
| Recognition of specific visitor attractions | A number of respondents request explicit recognition of specific visitor attractions and assets within the policy or policies map, including Delamere Forest, Chester Zoo, Oulton Park, the Ice Cream Farm (Tattenhall) and canals. |
| Recreational disturbance and designated sites | Two representations request stronger policy wording to address recreational disturbance, biodiversity impacts and pressures on designated sites arising from increased visitor activity. |
| Canals, waterways and blue infrastructure | Support is expressed for recognising canals and waterways as important visitor assets, with calls to strengthen policy wording on towpaths, connectivity, recreation and links to Ellesmere Port. |
| Economic benefits, local jobs and community value | Some respondents emphasise that visitor economy growth should deliver tangible local benefits, including good-quality jobs, support for independent businesses and benefits shared with local communities. |
| Major attractions and site-specific considerations | Two representations highlight the importance of site-specific policy support and long-term planning certainty, particularly for established tourist destinations with strategic investment plans. |
| Green Belt protection | Two respondents stress that visitor economy development should not result in inappropriate Green Belt loss and should be carefully controlled in sensitive locations. |
Question VE 2
Do you agree with aligning the policy approach for the visitor economy, tourism and leisure with the suggested policy approach for town centres in TC 1 'Town centres'?
12 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for aligning visitor economy with town centres | The majority of respondents support the principle of aligning visitor economy policy with town centre policy, recognising benefits for town centre vitality, regeneration, local services and sustainable patterns of development. |
| Town centre first approach for visitor accommodation and attractions | Strong support is expressed for a town centre first approach to hotels, visitor accommodation and attractions, to maximise footfall, support existing businesses and avoid dispersing tourism activity to out-of-centre or greenfield sites. |
| Protecting rural areas and countryside from inappropriate tourism growth | Respondents emphasise that aligning visitor economy policy with town centres should help protect the countryside and Green Belt from inappropriate visitor accommodation, particularly large-scale or car-dependent development. |
| Flexibility and avoiding overly restrictive policy | Some respondents agree with the aspiration but caution that the policy should not become unreasonably restrictive or prevent appropriate visitor uses in edge-of-centre or rural locations where impacts can be managed. |
| Support for local people and community ownership | One respondent highlights the importance of enabling local people to take ownership of visitor economy opportunities, suggesting a more flexible approach where proposals are community-led or benefit local residents. |
| Historic settlements and character protection | One representation stresses that historic settlements and town centres with particular character may require more stringent planning controls to maintain their tourism appeal and avoid overdevelopment. |
| Relationship with housing pressures and short-term lets | One respondent raises concerns that growth in the visitor economy could exacerbate housing pressures if new housing is diverted into short-term holiday lets (e.g. Airbnb), requiring careful management. |
| Infrastructure capacity and town centre resilience | One respondent notes that town centres must have adequate infrastructure, services and public realm capacity to support increased visitor activity without undermining quality of life for residents. |
Question VE 3
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards rural tourism and leisure, including visitor accommodation policies (caravan and camping sites) in the countryside?
15 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for rural tourism and accommodation in principle | Many respondents support rural tourism and visitor accommodation in principle, recognising its contribution to the rural economy, farm diversification and local services, subject to appropriate safeguards. |
| Alignment with national policy (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 88) | One respondent argues that restrictive local policies conflict with national planning policy, particularly National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 88, which supports sustainable rural tourism and business growth, including well-designed new buildings where appropriate. |
| Green Belt restrictions and policy tension | One respondent raises concerns about tension between support for rural tourism and restrictive Green Belt policies, with calls to amend strategic policies to allow appropriate tourist accommodation outside settlement boundaries where impacts are acceptable. |
| Scale, visual impact and landscape protection | A dominant theme is the need to strictly control the scale and visual impact of rural tourist accommodation. Respondents strongly oppose large holiday parks, static caravans or chalet developments that harm landscape character. |
| Focus on small-scale, low-impact and farm-based development | Support is expressed for small-scale, low-impact rural tourism, such as farm-based accommodation, B&Bs, certificated camping sites and diversification linked to existing buildings or businesses. |
| Camping and caravanning – concerns and support | Mixed views are expressed on camping and caravanning. Some support small certificated sites, while others raise concerns about proliferation, traffic, visual harm and conflicts with climate objectives. |
| Climate change and transport sustainability | Several respondents highlight the importance of aligning rural tourism with climate objectives, including reducing car dependency, providing sustainable transport options and avoiding tourism models reliant on frequent car travel. |
| Access, infrastructure and local facilities | Two respondents emphasise that rural visitor accommodation should only be supported where there is adequate access to local facilities, infrastructure and sustainable transport, to avoid isolated and car-dependent development. |
| Biodiversity, ancient woodland and sensitive areas | Two objections are raised to rural tourism development in sensitive locations, including areas of high-quality landscape, ancient woodland and irreplaceable habitats, with calls for explicit policy safeguards. |
| Impact on local housing markets and short-term lets | One respondent raises concern that growth in visitor accommodation could lead to homes being bought for short-term lets (e.g. Airbnb), reducing housing availability for local residents. |
| Linkages with local businesses and community benefits | One response highlights the potential for rural visitor accommodation to support local pubs, shops and hospitality businesses, contributing to community sustainability when appropriately managed. |
| Monitoring and cumulative impacts | One respondent calls for monitoring of cumulative impacts of camping and caravan sites in areas of acknowledged natural beauty, to avoid incremental harm over time. |
Question VE 4
Should a site specific policy be considered for any other significant visitor attractions? Please provide your reasons.
10 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Need for clear and robust policy wording | One respondent emphasises that Policy VE4 must be clearly worded to avoid loopholes or unintended consequences, particularly where policies relate to specific uses or groups. Ambiguity is considered capable of being exploited. |
| Concerns about unintended impacts from visitor economy growth | One respondent supports growth in the visitor economy in principle but raise concerns about secondary impacts, including housing being diverted to short-term lets (e.g. Airbnb) and increased camping or caravanning conflicting with climate objectives. |
| Support for recognising nationally or regionally significant visitor assets | Two respondents support identifying and recognising major, nationally or regionally significant visitor attractions through site-specific policies in order to safeguard their role and investment certainty. |
| Identification of specific visitor attractions | Two respondents highlight specific attractions that they consider worthy of site-specific recognition, including Anderton Boat Lift, Delamere Forest, Marbury Park and the Lion Salt Works, citing their national significance and economic contribution. |
| Appropriate mechanisms for protecting assets (policy vs other designations) | One response suggests that some assets are better protected through neighbourhood plans, biodiversity policies or heritage designations rather than being labelled explicitly as tourism attractions, to avoid conflicting land use priorities. |
| No requirement for additional site-specific policies at present | One respondent states that no additional site-specific visitor economy policies are required beyond those already identified (e.g. Chester Zoo, Oulton Park), unless future growth pressures emerge. |
Question VE 5
Does the suggested policy approach support a prosperous rural economy, whilst maintaining the character of the countryside?
15 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Protection of countryside character and heritage | Strong emphasis on ensuring visitor economy development conserves and enhances countryside character, historic environment, heritage assets and their settings. Respondents caution against tourism development that erodes local distinctiveness or harms valued landscapes. |
| Balancing tourism growth with rural character | Many respondents support visitor economy growth in principle but stress that development and change of use must be controlled, sympathetic in scale and design, and compatible with rural character and tranquillity. |
| Over-tourism and impacts on local communities | One representation warns about the risks of over-tourism, including pricing out local residents, pressures on services and loss of community identity, advocating for locally led and sustainable tourism. |
| Infrastructure to support tourism (hotels, B&Bs, facilities) | Support is expressed for a more streamlined and supportive planning approach for infrastructure that supports tourism, such as hotels and B&Bs, to encourage visitor growth where impacts are acceptable. |
| Visitor economy and housing pressures / short-term lets | One respondent raised concern that increased tourism could result in new housing being purchased for short-term holiday letting (e.g. Airbnb), reducing housing availability for local residents. |
| Camping, caravanning and climate change | One objection is raised to growth in camping and caravanning on climate grounds, particularly where tourism is car dependent and conflicts with climate change and transport reduction agendas. |
| Access to countryside and public enjoyment | One respondent argues that encouraging access to the countryside and outdoor recreation should be prioritised, potentially above more intensive forms of tourism development. |
| Support for strategic visitor assets – Ness Botanic Gardens | One respondent supports a site-specific policy for Ness Botanic Gardens, highlighting its national significance, visitor numbers, biodiversity value, education role, and future investment plans. |
| Sustainable transport and connectivity to visitor attractions | One respondent supports improving sustainable transport links to key visitor attractions, including enhanced bus services and rail connectivity, to reduce car dependency. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.