Question 30. What approach should the next plan take to supporting or managing tourism in Cambridge and the rural area?

Restrict the numbers of Air BnB properties to keep housing for local people who are working in the area.

Providing tourist accommodation in rural areas might have a negative impact in that access would almost invariably be by private car. How is this consistent with the climate change agenda? Consideration of locating tourist accommodation in residential areas could contribute to a loosening of social cohesion.

manage it so that it benefits all, not the few (ie those with hotels and spare rooms): especially can we have a visitor tax? Can we put an airbnb policy in place like London?

The whole concept of people flying around the world on holiday is not remotely sustainable. The tourism industry needs to change massively and fast, or frankly die in a ditch, before it kills us all.

There is pressure on developers to replace domestic housing with aparthotels which cause problems for local residents and are not really used by tourists. Air BnB should be restricted to rooms in residents' houses and should be licensed. Already whole houses are being used for commercial letting through AirBnB. This prevents families living in those houses and causes problems of noise for neighbours.

Visit Cambridge is leading the preparation of a Destination Management Plan (DMP) for Cambridge, which will be launched when completed later this year. Local Plan drafting should be informed by the emerging proposals for the DMP.

Proposals which seek to extend tourism beyond Cambridge should be supported where they can provide economic and social benefits for other communities within and beyond Greater Cambridge. For instance, proposals for expansion of visitor numbers and facilities at Fen Drayton lakes should seek to consider the impact on Fenstanton. The interaction between the negative impacts of increased traffic and the potential to improve the local economy through business growth and holiday accommodation should be balanced with emphasis given to supporting tourism attractions and accommodation in locations accessible by sustainable modes of travel.

I am not sure we should be supporting and encouraging tourism at all, because each year most of our millions of visitors fly to the UK. We must reduce flying. You could argue that they will go to London anyway and that their visit to Cambridge is additional, but nonetheless we should try to address this issue. Could there be a local tax on visitor accommodation, with the income ring-fenced for climate mitigation? This would raise useful funds and help to limit numbers. I understand that local jobs depend on tourists so I am not suggesting we try to kill the industry, that’s impossible anyway, but let’s not be culpable in the ongoing damage caused by aviation. I suspect most of the profits from visitor accommodation go to the shareholders of (inter)national hotel chains, so if there must be a new hotel can we say that we will give permission only when a local company is committed to take it on?

The benefits of tourism should not bring disadvantages to the local community such as increased levels of congestion and air pollution from tourist coaches. Visits by large groups should be coordinated better with dedicated spaces for coaches to park on the outskirts of the city, supported by zero-carbon electric minibuses or other shuttles to take smaller groups around the main sights. Walking and cycling tours should be promoted above those by motor vehicle.

Ban or tax tourist coaches parking in Queens Road 'the backs'. My observations are that after a few quick photos most day visitors spend little or no money in the city

I think Visit Cambridge has got the right idea here. It won’t take away all the short visits, but we can encourage longer stays to explore the area more by making visitors aware of what attractions or places of interest there are to visit. Promoting attractions that link in with their interests will help, as will better management of coach tours.

No need to support it! It’s one of the things that is eating Cambridge. If you could why not have a licensing system for coaches coming into the City.

Cambridge does not face the tourism challenge of a Dubrovnik or Venice but it could ban large vehicles, including buses, from the central areas as many tourist areas do.

Cambridge to be a green eco city, safe for cyclists and pedestrians with good public transport

Most of the main tourist sites are already very busy. We shouldn’t encourage much more of it, and should ensure current tourism doesn’t have an impact on local environment, e.g. pollution/congestion from tourist coaches.

Transport is a key issue here, and outside the remit of the Local Plan. The huge increase in tourism in recent years puts enormous pressure on capacity and resources in a small historic town like Cambridge. Airbnb is an increasing problem in residential areas, and the many new hotels and tourist apartments are prolific users of water, which is now recognised as being in short supply in this region. They also take city centre space that could be used for sustainable housing for local people and have a negative impact on community cohesion.

Plan yourself a cycle tour in the Netherlands and Belgium; copy the great things they do there!

A positive approach which maximises the use of public transport and promotes strategic locations for leisure use.

sustainability

Tourism excessive: The centre of Cambridge risks becoming - or already is - a sort of Disneyland, again for the apparent benefit of the passing tourist trade. It should be won back for residents, by reintroducing proper shops of quality, such as we had in the days of Eaden Lilley's - which catered for all pockets - and the highend Joshua Taylor's. It should cultivate proper old fashioned family run high street shops, instead of the continuing rotation of chain shops. For this pressure should be put on government to drop business rates. Tourist coaches: There should be a charge on tourist buses and a limit to the number allowed to park along the Backs. The model could be Siena, where coach companies are charged €130 for dropping off passengers, then have to park in a carpark away from the centre. If they are bringing passengers who will spend the night, they pay €60 just for the first night, then it's free. In either case, the coach operators must get in touch with the city offices to make a booking. I have heard a figure of £500 per coach suggested at a City Deal meeting a few years ago. Excessive number of hotels/Airbnb: I agree that the proliferation of hotels and Airbnb should be halted, for two reasons. Firstly, it is quite shocking at a time when there is such a lack of accommodation for those working in the city. Secondly, these types of cheap accommodation for transient visitors contribute to the social fragmentation of the city. Our city should be for residents and there should be a positive policy to attract and enable more residential use of the heart of Cambridge.

No comment.

We believe that the guided busway stop and cycle path near the RSPB Fen Drayton reserve is a good example of how local authorities can help support tourism (and access to green space) in the rural areas of Greater Cambridge. We therefore believe the plan should ensure that new public transport infrastructure in the plan area further improves access to nature reserves which service tourists from both within, and outside the area. Greater Cambridge also has the opportunity to deliver a major programme of landscape-scale habitat creation. Large new sites would provide the opportunity to attract high numbers of new visitors to areas surrounding Cambridge.

The rapid increase tourism in Cambridge has become a contentious issue with residents. Clearly it is an issue that requires effective management, although the Local Plan has limited ability to address this matter, which could be better dealt with through other Council departments. 30A. Managing Tourism in Cambridge • Avoid policies or new developments in the Plan that will exacerbate issues of mass tourism in the city centre. These might include: - developments that would increase crowding in already over-crowded locations. - developments which negatively impact on residential areas, such as budget hotels. - restrictions on the use of much needed local housing as short-term holiday letting (AirBNB). Councils elsewhere have proposed a licencing/registration scheme for AirBNB-type lets with a restriction of a maximum of 30 days per annum. - Developments which would encourage additional “day-tripping”: proposals that encourage longer-term stays and greater dispersal of tourism should be encouraged • Coaches should be discouraged from entering the City with parking facilities provided at P&R sites: tourists can then be transferred to the City Centre using electric shuttle services. The SW sector of the City Centre around Queen’s Green is being degraded because of its use as a drop-off/pick-up site by coaches, and this must be stopped. • A sustainable tourism plan/strategy should be produced to which developments must be in alignment. The potential to disperse tourism through tours to less visited parts of the City should be explored • Serious consideration should be given to the introduction of a tourism charge to fund the measures proposed in the strategy. Several cities, like York, Bath, and Edinburgh, are proposing a “tourism tax” to be applied through the tour operators or overnight accommodation. • Tourism not only erodes the enjoyment of the City by residents but also has a direct impact on the heritage assets themselves. This threat and appropriate counter-measures must be covered by the Historic Environment Strategy. It may, for example, be necessary to limit entry to assets only to guided parties whose numbers and frequencies can be controlled. 30B. Supporting tourism in rural areas • Most “tourists” visiting attractions in rural Greater Cambridge will be local people – for example, Wandlebury Country Park has over 60,000 visitors per year almost all drawn from within Greater Cambridge. Rural attractions include places such as Wandlebury, Wimpole Estate, Wicken Fen, Anglesey Abbey, Denny Abby and Fen Drayton Lakes. All of these locations are experiencing visitor pressure caused by a rapidly increasing local population, rather than tourists from further afield. Most of these attractions provide quality-of-life benefits to local people. • If the Greater Cambridge population continues to grow, then new visitor attractions will need to be created or existing attractions expanded. The expectations of visitors for high quality facilities are also rising, so attractions must be able to provide top-class interpretation and information, together with toilets, paths and ramps suitable for disabled visitors, refreshments, and vehicle parking. This also means that associated operational buildings may be needed, for example for storing machinery, work vehicles, and staff facilities. It may even be necessary to have staff permanently on-site for security or other operational reasons. The Local Plan policy should recognise these pressures and be supportive of measures to address them – within the historic and environmental constraints often present at visitor attractions.

Environmentally acceptable (train, coach) tourism, great - particularly if they want to stay to see more. Reducing capacity (e.g. coach parks and hotels) are possible measures. Beware encouraging the day tripper (whose coaches clog up, especially if they must go out and come back in again to park) who spends little here versus the overnight visitor. Some areas outside of the city could be better marketed which are currently run-down and we should look at a holistic approach to Tourism for our region of Greater Cambridgeshire Collect and use the data around numbers and requirements to identify our optimum number of tourists and manage this accordingly.

• The effect of the growing population in Greater Cambridge will increasingly put pressure on existing rural attractions. In Fulbourn, the privately owned Nature Reserve (managed by the Wildlife Trust), parts of which are an SSSI, brings traffic from outside the village down the dead-end Stonebridge Lane, a ‘quiet’ rural road with no pavements, while the reserve also becomes a destination for many dog walkers along the permissive paths, not always compatible with its prime function as a site for nature. • Subsequently, new rural attractions need to be urgently created, both parks and wilder areas where the natural world is predominant. This will mean taking land out of agricultural use, but it is essential, both to protect existing biodiverse sites and to provide new areas which can contribute to the quality of life of the expanding population.

Have a tourist tax to mitigate negative impact. New hotels above 10 beds should be outside of the city. Introduce licensing of rental properties including AirBnB. Make it tourist friendly.

Cambridge city centre is currently constrained and there are limitations to the growth of the city in all directions, except to the east. The CPIER recognises that the scale of Cambridge East offers significant scope for housing and commercial development and would allow for the delivery of cultural and sports uses of sub-regional importance. The site offers the potential for a step change in Cambridge’s current cultural offering, with the potential to deliver a refreshed night-time economy, new meanwhile uses, iconic public realm, significant cultural anchors in the east of the city and more. These cultural and sports uses would support tourism in Cambridge whilst still having the advantage of being close to the city centre.

Tourism is a market-led activity. Cambridge city is swamped but there are many places of interest elsewhere in the county which could be better promoted. Peterborough, Stilton, Ely and Wisbech come to mind and there are many more. Attention needs to be given to retaining and providing facilities for tourists and not removing them as Ely has by building on its main coach park.

- Many major destinations appear to find tourism a mixed blessing and are taking steps to avoid excessive visitor numbers or methods of increasing the value to the local economy. The LDP approach should provide a comparison with steps taken in Bath, York, Oxford etc. and avoid the pitfalls of a laissez faire approach which may simply lead to overcrowding and little value to our communities.

Issues include, but are not limited to: • The retention and improvement of the waterways, their settings and associated corridors in the Greater Cambridge area for navigation, environmental, leisure and tourism through the provision of related facilities. • The provision of a Water Space Strategy.