Review of Business Improvement Districts consultation

Transcription

1 A British Property Federation response Review of Business Improvement Districts consultation 1. The British Property Federation (BPF) represents companies owning, managing and investing in real estate. This includes a broad range of businesses comprising commercial property owners and developers, the financial institutions and pension funds, corporate landlords and residential landlords, as well as all those professions that support the industry. 2. We welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation. We believe Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are a successful means of uniting local businesses to improve the public realm within which they operate. However, we recognise that their take-up has varied across the country and agree further steps could be taken to ensure BIDs are transparent, accountable and effective. Question 1: Do you agree that Business Improvement District bodies should be legally required to provide a certain level of transparency? 3. Yes. Increasing transparency and improving the image of BIDs will be vital to their continued success, as take-up has been somewhat stymied by the negative examples of several BIDs failing to be sufficiently transparent. Question 2: If you answered yes to question 1, do you agree that this should be achieved by mandating the publication of independently audited annual accounts and report? 4. No. The vast majority of BIDs already publish reports and accounts in an effort to maintain transparency. Mandating independently audited annual accounts and report would place a substantial burden on BIDs, particularly those with a smaller budget. In addition, this seems to be in contrast with the current Government s desire to support businesses and reduce red tape in order to promote growth. 5. Many BIDs already publish an annual billing leaflet, and we suggest that this would be an ideal vehicle for publishing accounts. 6. While we welcome a certain level of flexibility for those are setting up BIDs, we recommend that such groups are registered as companies limited by guarantee in order to ensure consistency and allow BIDs to extend their role across the country in a more uniform manner. This would also allow BIDs to exercise a flexible approach to respond to change while ensuring consistency in their legal standing. 7. We appreciate there would be an initial fee involved in setting up such a structure which could potentially deter some applicants, and recommend the 500,000 loan fund initiated by the previous Government could be used for this purpose. Question 3: If you answered no to question 1, please tell us why. 8. N/A Question 4: Do you have alternative suggestions for increasing the transparency of Business Improvement District bodies? 1

2 9. Yes. British BIDs, the industry body for BIDs, has successfully introduced a voluntary accreditation system for BIDs which assesses their management and supervisory systems. While there has been a fee for this process, we would support its continuation and subsidised funding in order to promote an industry standard. Question 5: Do you think there should be a legally required set of procedural issues that Business Improvement District bodies and local authorities agree to and publish from the outset to ensure that both parties are clear on their working relationship towards one another? 10. Yes. This is particularly important in a time when BIDs are being asked to provide an increasing number and variety of services, in part due to continuing cuts in the public sector. By incorporating these procedural issues into a legally-required document, local authorities will be incentivised to commit to them, while a defined set of procedural issues will allow BIDs to maintain their true role and independence. 11. However, rather than creating a new service level agreement, we would advocate the use of the Baseline Agreement for Provision of Standard Services, developed as part of the original pilot BID programme. It has been updated regularly and defines the contractual and working relationship between the local authority and the BID for the purposes of the collection and enforcement of the BID levy, as well as arrangements for billing and fund transfer, and could include these procedural issues. Question 6: If you answered yes to question 5, how often do you think the agreement should be updated and what issues do these types of agreement need to cover? 12. We recommend the agreement be updated annually. We would welcome the inclusion of a specified timetable for responding to different types of request and transparency requirements. However, the requirement for quarterly meetings is somewhat heavy-handed and would be impractical and difficult to enact. Question 7: What other ways can the working relationship between Business Improvement District bodies and local authorities be strengthened? 13. While many BIDs and local authorities work together extremely well and can be held up as examples of good practice, there are inevitably areas where either side could improve. We would encourage a series of incentives and disincentives to encourage local authorities to work closely and transparently with their local BID whether these are financial or otherwise. Question 8: Do you agree that Business Improvement District bodies should have the option to decide who collects the levy on their behalf? 14. Yes. There is currently neither clarity nor consistency on the amount local authorities charge for collecting the levy, and the costs vary hugely across the country. While we appreciate the very real need for local authorities to recover their costs of collection, in many cases this has resulted in an unduly burdensome and expensive system. 15. We therefore welcome the suggestion that BIDs could collect the levy themselves or contract out collection and enforcement to other external organisations. By 2

3 introducing an element of competition it is likely that local authorities will lower their charges to a genuine cost recovery level and offer BIDs better value for money, allowing a larger percentage of the levy itself to benefit the BID area. Question 9: Do you agree that Business Improvement District bodies should be eligible to apply to the local planning authority to be designated as a neighbourhood forum, without meeting the current membership requirements? 16. No. The BPF has long-supported business-led neighbourhood planning, and recognises its value in encouraging working communities to play a greater role in deciding the type of development they want to see in their area. However, the creation of a two-tier system with different membership requirements for BIDs and non-business groups could potentially send confusing messages to communities, discouraging them from seeking to form a neighbourhood forum. 17. There is a possibility this could also harm the reputation of BIDs at a time when they should be working to raise awareness of the benefits they can bring an area. Question 10: Do you agree with the proposed conditions for any Business Improvement District body that wishes to apply for designation as a neighbourhood forum? 18. Yes. Businesses have a crucial part to play in the neighbourhood planning process, and it is important that they work closely with residents and community groups on delivering growth that benefits the area. While this has already proven extremely successful in small market towns or industrial centres, it is important that care is taken in certain cases to avoid unintended consequences in certain situations: for example, a landlord who forms part of a property owner BID would consult on an emerging Neighbourhood Plan with occupiers of premises, who may feel uncomfortable responding negatively to a plan developed by their landlord. 19. Including local residents in neighbourhood planning is vitally important. There are examples of BIDs with a Neighbourhood Plan which has resident representation, and lessons could be learnt from these areas, to ensure residents do not feel alienated from the process. Question 11: What are your views on a Business Improvement District body automatically being a qualifying body for the purposes of neighbourhood planning? 20. There are mixed views on this within the BPF membership. While we recognise the move from the traditional service delivery function of BIDs to an increasing policy function, there is a possibility that not all BIDs will have the resources, desire or ability to respond accordingly. In general, many services delivered by BIDs so far have focused on design and streetscapes; to introduce responsibility for planning in the area would be a significant step change, and one for which perhaps not all BIDs may be ready, or suited. Question 12: Do you have any further views on the proposal that Business Improvement District bodies can take forward neighbourhood planning in designated business neighbourhood planning areas? 3

4 21. Yes. We are confident that BIDs can make a meaningful contribution to their community, and their involvement in neighbourhood planning will ensure that local businesses are involved in these vital discussions. This has already proven successful in some areas. However, this involvement should be on a controlled basis that ensures sufficient involvement from local residents. Question 13: Do you agree that the Regulations should be changed to require clear consultation in the development stage of a Business Improvement District before submission to the billing authority? 22. Yes. This already happens in most cases. Question 14: Do you agree that the process for notifying and balloting should be strengthened to include information on the consequences of voting, or not, in the ballot, and on the likely level of individual businesses levy payment? 23. Yes. Again, this already happens in many cases and we would support its inclusion in the Regulations in order for best practice to become the norm. Question 15: Do you agree that the Business Improvement District proposer should be required to provide individual notification of the outcome of the ballot to all of the businesses affected by the Business Improvement District proposals? 24. Yes. Question 16: Do you agree that ballot papers for ratepayer Business Improvement Districts should be sent outside England? 25. Yes. We also suggest considering the issue of ballots and collection of votes via an electronic system in order to reduce the administrative burden and cut paper work. An electronic system may also ensure greater regular interaction with BID members. Question 17: If you answered yes to Question 16, should it be permitted to send ballot papers internationally or only within the UK? If you answered no, please tell us why. 26. Yes, it should be permissible to send ballot papers internationally. Many banks and retailers with headquarters outside the UK are currently excluded from voting. Question 18: Do you agree that the time period should be extended for voters to apply for replacement ballot papers? 27. Yes. Question 19: If you answered yes to question 18, do you agree that it should be fourteen calendar days in advance? If you answered no, please tell us why. 28. Yes, we agree the time period should be extended to fourteen calendar days. Question 20: Are there particular barriers that have put off businesses from considering setting up a Business Improvement District? 29. For many, the cost involved in setting up a BID is the main barrier. While the 500,000 loan fund was introduced to cover this initial cost, it remains a deterrent 4

5 (particularly in market towns) and has led to disparity in the number and distribution of BIDs across different regions. 30. There also remains a lack of awareness amongst organisations about the benefits of BIDs. Particularly when many are understandably focussed on their own commercial realities rather than the wider impact of the public realm, organisations need to be convinced of the ways in which being part of a BID can enhance their success. British BIDs is working to raise awareness of these benefits across the country and we would be happy to support this initiative. 31. In general, businesses with a nationwide presence have been less convinced of the benefits than organisations in smaller towns, as the latter are likely to see a more noticeable impact given the relative size of the area within which they operate. 32. In addition, occupiers of office space have generally been less convinced of the benefits delivered by being part of a BID than retail occupiers, who are likely to see more of a measurable result from their involvement (such as increased footfall). 33. BIDs can and should be promoted as a positive aspect of moving into an area, as their benefits can provide a competitive advantage over a nearby location which is not part of a BID. This should encourage a domino effect where areas are incentivised to form BIDs in order not to be left behind. Question 21: Do you support bringing forward property owner Business Improvement Districts outside London? If not, why not? 34. Yes, in principle. Property owner BIDs offer great potential and we would support their expansion, particularly given the increasing need to unite fragmented ownerships on struggling high streets. 35. However, they are difficult to form when there is disparate land ownership and, given the limited examples of property owner BIDs to date, we recommend allowing existing examples to bed in before learning and disseminating good practice. 36. We also recommend separating property owner and occupier BIDs, as currently property owner BIDs are limited to where there is already a ratepayer BID in place. 37. In conclusion, we are confident that BIDs offer great potential to businesses and communities, and would recommend better sharing of best practice (for example through promoting case studies on the achievements of BIDs to date). 38. We would be pleased to discuss or amplify any points raised in our response. Rachel Campbell Policy Officer rcampbell@bpf.org.uk 5