Agenda item

1.Introduction

1.1      The Council welcome the opportunity to respond to the Department for Social Development’s (DSD) consultation on Business Improvement Districts (BIDs).

1.2      The Council recognise that BIDs have been a positive mechanism for the promotion and regeneration of town centres and other business areas. The Council has active experience of supporting businesses across the City, most recently in the “Backin’ Belfast” initiative in early 2013, but also through our support for Trader’s Groups and from our physical regeneration programme “Renewing the Routes”. the Council welcome the introduction of BIDs as a further way to enhance the partnership between the public and private sector; and will support any business area that comes forward to lead and develop BID proposals.

1.3      However, the Department will be aware that a significant period of Local Government Reform is currently underway. Elections to Shadow Councils will be held in May 2014, with new Councils taking legal form on 1st April, 2015. It is unclear at present as to how the Shadow Council will be administered and how decisions will be taken.  The existing Council will, at that stage, be winding down, and it is questionable if the outgoing or Shadow Council will be best placed to deal with any BID proposals during that time.

1.4      Evidence from England and Scotland suggests a 12-18 month timeframe to fully develop a BID. If a business body starts their development work now, then the electoral procedures could take place within, or towards the end of, the Shadow BID period. This will be an extremely demanding period for Local Authorities – in particularly our democratic, financial, and legal services. DSD may therefore wish to stipulate in the Regulations that the commencement of electoral procedures will not occur prior to the 1 April 2015, at which point the Shadow Councils will take legal form.

1.5      If this stipulation is not made, then the Council would welcome further guidance and legal assurance around the process for Shadow Councils to respond to BID proposals, and administer relevant procedures.

2.  Is there an adequate level of prescription in the Regulations to ensure effective governance while still allowing for local flexibility in putting together a BID process?

2.1      As part of the previous consultation in Feb 2011, the Council  suggested that ratings information should be provided by DFP. The Council welcome the fact that DSD have incorporated this suggestion at Regulation 2, and are content that this approach is a sensible way to initiate the development of BID proposals. the Council is also content at the concept of a BID proposer drawn from the business community, which is outlined at Regulation 3.

2.2      The Council are also content with subsequent processes, outlined at Regulation 5, which require a business and financial plan, and evidence of appropriate stakeholder consultation, before any commitment to an electoral ballot is made.

2.3      The Council note that many BIDs in the UK and Ireland, as part of their Governance procedures, have included formal Boards, both in Shadow form during the development stage and as part of ongoing best management practice. Many of these Boards include appropriate local stakeholders, which could be business and community leaders, and Members of the Local Authority. While we are not suggesting that membership details of any Board should be prescribed, the Department may wish to consider if the creation of a BID Board, which is distinct from the executive and management function, should be included within the Regulations.

2.4      As part of good governance we also suggest that the executive of the BID produce an annual report to their Boards, reporting progress against the business and financial plan set out in the original BID proposals. This report should be made available to local stakeholders and the wider public (this duty could be discharged by placing a copy of the report on the BID’s website).

2.5      The concept of a formal Board carries further importance should the Council’s suggestion that the levy receipts are passed directly to the BID (see para 4.4 and 4.5 below) be adopted.

3. In Regulation 10 and Schedule 2, are the timescales, e.g. for issuing ballot papers, appeals, vetoes etc, set at the correct level? If not please be specific about which ones you think should be changed.

3.1      Under Regulation 6 the Council has a duty to appoint a Ballot Holder, for the purposes of running the initial Ballot, or any renewal ballots, alternation ballets, or re-ballots. Save for the concerns raised at para 1.3 and 1.4 above, the Council is content with this obligation, and the mechanisms and timescales to challenge a ballot covered in Regulation 10, and of administering the ballot covered at schedule 2.

4. In Schedule 4, is it sufficient to provide the power for councils to enforce the payment of unpaid levies and leave the specifics of how to go about it up to the Councils? If not, please provide further information.

4.1      The Council have significant concerns over the proposed financial regulations, covered at s15, s16 and schedule 4, which places the duty for the collection, enforcement and administration of the BID levy onto the Council. While we note the ability to devolve these matters to a billing body, Regulation 16 clearly states that the legal duty rests with the Council.

4.2      In NI the collection of business rates is undertaken by the Land & Property Services Agency (LPS).  Local councils have no previous role in this field and it does not appear appropriate to engage them in this work.  It is our proposal that the business levy should be collected by LPS. To do otherwise will mean different billing, collection and enforcement systems causing both duplication and confusion. The preferred and most cost effective approach is therefore collection and enforcement by LPS.

4.3      Our concerns are further reinforced by the fact that, following consultation on the primary legislation, DSD issued a memorandum dated 25 June 2012, stating that, on this matter, they had received a number of concerns relating to billing, collecting and enforcing the BID levy.  In the memo (para 10) they stated they had discussed this issue with DFP and had agreed that LPS would be responsible for the administration of the BID levy. This has not been reflected in the Regulations, and no reference to LPS has been made.

4.4      In addition we see no value in Local Authority management of the BID Revenue Account, which appears to create an unnecessary administrative tier. Involving Local Authorities in the administration of accounts may also suggest that Councils are imposing an additional tax on business. This could undermine the intention of the Department, as outlined in the introduction to the consultation, that the levy is best viewed as a collective investment by businesses for specific additional services.

4.5      In addition to transferring the billing, collection and enforcement of the Levy to LPS, the Council would also propose that the Levy is passed directly to the BID rather than coming through Council accounts. Appropriate financial controls are best achieved through the Governance of a BID Board, as recommended at para 2.3 above, and by requiring the BIDs to produce an annual report, recommended at para 2.4 above.

5.  Is more clarity required on any of the processes?

5.1      As highlighted in these responses, further clarity is required in relation to:

·         The possibility of local authorities administering electoral procedures from May 2013 to March 2014, when Shadow Councils are in force and a significant period of local government reform is underway (para 1.3 and 1.4)

·         Should the duties to collect, enforce and administer the Levy remain with Local Authorities, over which the Council has registered significant concern at para 4.1 and 4.2, then further guidance on the practical management of these responsibilities will be required.

·         Further clarification would be useful on the obligations on businesses that start trading in the BID area after it has been established. It is assumed that these businesses will be legally liable for the Levy, even though they did not have an opportunity to vote on the proposals, but it may be sensible to make specific reference to this.

6. Any other comments?

6.1      While our intention will be to fully support the development of BID proposals, Council welcome the powers of veto outlined at Regulation 13, and view these as a sensible measure that can help focus minds and secure stronger agreement.

6.2      In terms of the BID conflicting with Planning Orders listed at Regulation 13, it is important to recognise that the Council also have a number of statutory and non-statutory improvement plans for areas. This can include area plans, corporate plans or other strategic initiatives. Regulation 5(4) recognises the potential for conflict or an overlap between the BID and existing plans published by the Council. However, there is no power to resolve these potential conflicts, save through a more loosely defined power to veto BID proposals due to lack of consultation with the Council (Reg 13(3e). The Council suggest that the more specific conflicts mentioned at Regulation 5(4) are also included in the power of veto.

6.3      DSD are no doubt aware that the Planning (NI) Order 1991, which is referenced at Regulation 13(2), will be superseded by the Planning Act (NI) 2011, and elements of the Planning Act (NI) 2013. While the final BID legislation must be consistent with current legislation at the time of enactment, it may be appropriate to reference these changes, including the proposed Council powers of area and community planning. The role of Council will increase in volume as a result of the proposed transfer of planning and regeneration functions.”