Alternative Accommodation Study
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Alternative Accommodation Study November 2016 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 THE PROJECT 2 1.2 OUR APPROACH 2 1.3 NOTES ON DATA 3 2 CURRENT SITUATION ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 VISITOR PROFILE 4 2.2 ACCOMMODATION PROFILE 5 3 POLICY FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 AGRI-TOURISM OPPORTUNITIES 9 3.2 LAND USE POLICY 10 4 STAKEHOLDER INPUT ....................................................................................................................................22 5 ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION OPPORTUNITIES ..................................................................................25 5.2 FARM STAYS 26 5.3 BED AND BREAKFASTS 27 5.4 AIRBNB 28 5.5 FANSHAWE COLLEGE 29 6 CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................................................30 6.1 THE NORTHWEST FARM STAY WEBSITE 30 6.2 THE FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK 32 6.3 STRATFORD, ONTARIO 34 7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................36 APPENDIX APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY SURVEY ....................................................................................................................42 APPENDIX B: STARTING A FARM STAY CHECKLIST- MARKET READINESS TOOL .......................................44 APPENDIX C: YATES COUNTY OCCUPANCY TAX- LOCAL LAW NO. 4-07 .......................................................45 APPENDIX D: COUNTY ACCOMMODATIONS ......................................................................................................46 Cover Photos retrieved from: Haldimand County Website (2016), Norfolk County Website (2016), TripAdvisor Website Norfolk B&B (2016) i MDB Insight: Draft Alternative Accommodation Study 1 Introduction The Counties of Elgin, Norfolk, and Haldimand (“the Counties”) have emerged as key tourism destinations in Ontario and comprise a significant portion of Ontario’s Southwest. Their locations along the north shore of Lake Erie attract tens of thousands of visitors annually with the opportunity to experience a variety of outdoor activities including birding, cycling, fishing, camping, swimming and boating. The Counties are also known for their agricultural heritage, leading to a broad array of culinary offerings, including farmers’ markets, wineries, artisanal food, breweries and distilleries. Cultural programs like Savour Elgin and events like the Eat and Drink Norfolk and Harvests of Haldimand, as well as a network of local and regional festivals further connect visitors and residents to the rich cultural history of the region. FIGURE 1: MAP OF ELGIN, NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND COUNTIES Source: Modified by MDB Insight, retrieved from: http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/AIA/Index.html?site=AIA&viewer=AIA&locale=en-US It is estimated that in 2013, over 17 million people traveled to Ontario’s Southwest communities.1 Of these, 30% stayed overnight. As the Counties continue to expand their experienced-based tourism opportunities, bringing with this more and more tourists, visitors are increasingly challenged to find suitable overnight accommodation either in the form of traditional roofed accommodation such as hotels or motels or alternative forms of accommodations such as bed and breakfasts or farm stays. 1 Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport, (2014), regional tourism profiles: Region 1 west Ontario. Retrieved from: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/research/rtp/rtp.shtml 1 MDB Insight: Alternative Accommodation Study for Elgin, Norfolk and Haldimand Counties 1.1 The Project The Counties recognize that they are facing a challenge in providing suitable accommodation options for visitors to the region during the peak tourism season. This, in turn, limits the economic impact that could be derived from an expanding tourism sector including the growth of the sector’s shoulder seasons. A contributing factor to this situation, based on available data and discussions with stakeholders, is the insufficient year round visitor demand to justify the development of branded accommodation (e.g. hotels/motels). For this reason, the Counties are considering how best to facilitate and support the provision of traditional accommodation options (e.g. bed and breakfasts, seasonal rentals, farm stays etc.), as well as a broader range of unique alternative accommodation options (e.g. glamping, tiny houses, boatels, cycling tent pods, bunkhouses, etc.) to reflect the growing visitor demand for this type of experience. The study that follows: . Documents the existing inventory of accommodation offerings (e.g. roofed and non-roofed), as well as the opportunity to accommodate additional units (e.g. vacant bunkhouses, upper storey units, secondary farm buildings); . Reviews the permissiveness of the current land use framework including existing incentive tools (e.g. County Official Plans, Community Improvement Plans); and . Identifies best practice approaches by jurisdictions (communities/regions) in terms of their efforts to attract and incent new accommodation offerings, particularly alternative accommodation. A further consideration in this regard is how best to inform property owners and investors of this business opportunity. This includes how to leverage the ongoing tourism marketing and promotional efforts of the individual counties and Southwest Ontario Tourism Corporation (SWOTC). 1.2 Our Approach The approach used in assessing the availability and opportunity associated with providing additional alternative accommodation options in the counties includes: . Research on the existing inventory of accommodation options available in each of the Counties through an examination of Canadian Business Patterns, InfoCanada, local and regional assessment data, business directories, as well as other available client information; . A review of the various upper tier official plans and community improvement plans to determine the current allowance for secondary residential uses. Discussions with the Counties’ planning staff were undertaken to understand the process by which these same planning tools could be adapted to include a broader range of accommodation options; . One on one interviews with individuals who are currently providing accommodation and who have been identified by the Counties as potential partners for the provision of additional 2 MDB Insight: Alternative Accommodation Study for Elgin, Norfolk and Haldimand Counties alternative accommodation uses and an online community survey distributed by the Counties to community partners and accommodation providers; and . A best practice review of implementation tools that assist with the creation of additional accommodation and a discussion of how two jurisdictions (e.g. the Finger Lakes District and Stratford, Ontario) have supported alternative accommodation options. 1.3 Notes on Data Data was collected from a variety of sources, including InfoCanada, Statistics Canada Canadian Business Patterns, Southwest Ontario Tourism Corporation (SWOTC) and the Counties. This information was used to develop an initial inventory of existing accommodation providers for each of the Counties (Appendix D). Relevant assessment data was provided by the Counties. The assessment data was used to further refine the existing inventory of accommodation providers (e.g. B&Bs, hotels, motels, campgrounds), as well as to identify underutilized properties or buildings that could be re- purposed for accommodation (e.g. secondary on-farm structures, upper storey residential units, seasonal dwellings). Relevant tourism data was provided by SWOTC and the Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport as it relates to the number of travellers to Ontario’s Southwest and the characteristics of these travellers. It should be noted that the collection and comparison of county assessment data was challenging. Different data collection methods exist and while Haldimand and Norfolk Counties are single-tier municipalities (making assessment data easier to obtain), Elgin County is an upper tier municipality with seven lower tier communities, making it more difficult to assemble. In addition, both Norfolk and Elgin collect information relating to bunkhouses, while Haldimand does not.2 2 Haldimand does not track bunkhouses as there are not a significant number of them. Haldimand County did not have the scale of tobacco farming that was seen in Norfolk or Elgin County and therefore did not have the same need for off- sitebunkhouses. 3 MDB Insight: Alternative Accommodation Study for Elgin, Norfolk and Haldimand Counties 2 Current Situation 2.1 Visitor Profile In order to understand the opportunity associated with providing additional tourism 49% of all visitors accommodation in the Counties, consideration has been given to the current level of are traveling to tourism visitor traffic. Given the lack of local visitor data, the report relies on available visit family or provincial and regional data. friends In 2013, 17,812,900 people visited Ontario’s Southwest with 56% of travellers visiting the 26% of all visitors area between April and September.3 Approximately 49% of all visitors travel to the area to are traveling for