In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 10 to consider Motions on notice from Members. Motions must be received in writing or by email to the Monitoring Officer by 12 noon twelve clear working days before the meeting.
The following motion has been submitted.
Motion A – Submitted by Councillor R Shipman
Motion: Opposition to the Proposed Tourist Tax by the East Midlands Mayor
This Council notes with concern the proposal by the East Midlands Mayor to introduce a regional tourist tax on overnight stays.
While this Council recognises the importance of sustainable funding for public services and regional infrastructure, it believes a tourist tax would be counter-productive for our district and the wider East Midlands economy.
Tourism plays a vital role in supporting local businesses, including hotels, guest houses, pubs, restaurants, attractions and event venues. Many of these businesses are small or family-run and are already facing significant pressures from rising energy costs, staffing shortages and increased operating expenses. A tourist tax risks discouraging visitors, particularly families and short-stay domestic tourists, at a time when the sector is still recovering.
The East Midlands is not a mass-tourism destination comparable to major international cities. Applying an additional charge risks making our region less competitive than neighbouring areas that do not impose such a levy, diverting visitors elsewhere and reducing footfall in our town centres.
This Council is also concerned that the proposal lacks clear detail on how funds would be collected, administered and ring-fenced, and whether revenues would genuinely be reinvested into the communities most affected.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Formally oppose the introduction of a tourist tax in the East Midlands.
2. Call on the East Midlands Mayor to abandon the proposal.
3. Request meaningful consultation with district councils, tourism bodies and local businesses before any similar measures are considered.
4. Write to the Mayor outlining this Council’s objections
Minutes:
The Chair confirmed that one Motion had been submitted.
Motion A – Submitted by Councillor R Shipman
Motion: Opposition to the Proposed Tourist Tax by the East Midlands Mayor
This Council notes with concern the proposal by the East Midlands Mayor to introduce a regional tourist tax on overnight stays.
While this Council recognises the importance of sustainable funding for public services and regional infrastructure, it believes a tourist tax would be counter-productive for our district and the wider East Midlands economy.
Tourism plays a vital role in supporting local business, including hotels, guest houses, pubs, restaurants, attractions and event venues. Many of these businesses are small or family-run and are already facing significant pressures from rising energy costs, staffing shortages and increased operating expenses. A tourist tax risks discouraging visitors, particularly families and short-stay domestic tourists, at a time when the sector is still recovering.
The East Midlands is not a mass-tourism destination comparable to major international cities. Applying an additional charge risks making our region less competitive than neighbouring areas that do not impose such a levy, diverting visitors elsewhere and reducing footfall in our town centres.
This Council is also concerned that the proposal lacks clear detail on how funds would be collected, administered and ring-fenced, and whether revenues would genuinely be reinvested into the communities most affected.
This Council therefore resolves to:-
1. Formally oppose the introduction of a tourist tax in the East Midlands.
2. Call on the East Midlands Mayor to abandon the proposal.
3. Request meaningful consultation with district councils, tourism bodies and local businesses before any similar measures are considered.
4. Write to the Mayor outlining this Council’s objectives.
Councillor R Shipman moved the Motion. Councillor Shipman spoke in opposition to the introduction of a tourism tax, stating that the District was an incredible tourist destination and that an additional levy would risk reducing visitor numbers and harming local businesses. It was suggested that visitors could choose alternative destinations outside Derbyshire, with potential impacts on the local economy and residents. Councillor Shipman urged the Council to take a stand and support the Motion.
Councillor D Hancock seconded the Motion. Councillor Hancock expressed concern that reduced footfall could adversely affect local businesses.
Councillor Dale indicated support for the Motion, stating that tourism was central to Derbyshire’s economy. Reference was made to similar representations previously made to Derbyshire County Council and to correspondence sent to the Mayor of the East Midlands expressing concern. Councillor Dale cited the scale of the visitor economy (including an estimated value of £3.58bn per annum and reported growth in overnight stays) and argued that the sector should be supported rather than subject to additional taxation. Councillor Dale also raised concerns regarding the precedent such a levy could set, the likelihood of taxes increasing over time, and the competitiveness of the area in relation to neighbouring counties. Further concerns were raised about existing cost pressures on businesses (including National Insurance and wage increases), potential impacts on town centres and employment, and the absence of detail regarding how any levy would be administered and how the proceeds would be allocated or reinvested.
Councillor R Welton spoke in support of the Motion and commented on the cumulative effect of taxation during challenging economic conditions.
Councillor S Reed spoke in support of the Motion and raised concerns regarding the potential impact on local businesses and that there was no clarity on how revenue would be reinvested.
Councillor C Cupit also spoke in support of the Motion and stated that clarification was needed on how any levy would be collected and how the proceeds would be spent, noting the District’s role as a gateway to the Peak District and potential issues around where benefits would accrue. Councillor Cupit proposed an amendment to include a 5th point in the resolved to read ‘Ask Cabinet or the relevant Scrutiny Committee to carry out informal consultation with businesses in the District to feed back to the Mayor of the East Midlands’.
Councillor R Shipman confirmed he was happy to accept the proposed amendment.
Councillor N Barker stated that consideration of the matter was premature, as the Mayor had not yet made a decision or presented detailed proposals. It was noted that a consultation on the proposal had recently closed on 18 February 2026, and that the outcomes were not yet known. Councillor Barker commented that the consultation had been about a levy, not a tax and the views of local stakeholders were not yet known. Councillor Barker emphasised the importance of evidence-based decision-making and suggested that, if any charge were to be used to improve the visitor offer, it could potentially lead to an increase in visitors. Reference was also made to the importance of the visitor economy and the Mayor’s stated ambition to develop the East Midlands as a major tourism destination.
Councillor F Adlington-Stringer commented on regional funding pressures and expressed concern about the impact on small, struggling businesses.
Councillor K Gillott supported the Leader’s comments and stated that there was insufficient information available regarding the likely consequences of a levy. It was suggested that not all Members were aware or had reviewed the consultation document, and it was noted that any decision would rest with the EMCCA Board. Councillor Gillott referred to the scale of the visitor economy and cited previous work and reports relating to tourism in the Peak District and Derbyshire, including scrutiny work to establish a baseline. Issues identified in earlier reviews were summarised, including relative underperformance and poor local transport connectivity. Councillor Gillott stated that there was no evidence that a levy would reduce tourism and suggested that the area would benefit from increased overnight stays.
Councillor M Durrant supported previous comments that it was too early to reach a conclusion while consultation was ongoing. It was stated that the tourism sector represented a significant growth opportunity and that a modest overnight levy would be unlikely to deter visitors, given prevailing accommodation costs. Councillor Durrant asked Members to vote against the Motion to allow the consultation to conclude and further details to emerge.
Councillor J Birkin stated that it was expected that the Mayor would undertake appropriate work and research before any implementation. Reference was made to broader principles of taxation and the need to identify funding sources for infrastructure to support visitors.
Councillor S Cornwell, as Chair of Business Scrutiny Committee, stated that she would welcome further discussion and suggested inviting EMCCA representatives to attend Scrutiny to address the matter. Reference was made to previous scrutiny work on tourism growth and to past marketing activity that had been funded.
Councillor C Renwick referred to previous growth scrutiny work and commented on the importance of the night-time economy, including potential impacts on local cafés, bars and restaurants.
Councillor L Hartshorne advised that, in his capacity as a member of the Peak District National Park Authority, the Authority was broadly supportive of the proposal in principle, subject to caveats, and was preparing a response to the consultation.
In his right of reply, Councillor R Shipman reiterated support for taking a position on this in principle. Councillor Shipman expressed concern that imposing additional charges on the visitor economy would not support growth and stated that any proposed levy would be intended for infrastructure rather than growth initiatives.
The Motion was put to the vote and lost.