Issue - meetings

Report number SEG23 of the Executive Member, Growth.           (Enclosure)

Decision:

That authority is given to the Leader of the Council to complete the postal ballot votes received in respect of each of the Council’s business properties within the Business Improvement District area.

The Leader, as the Executive Member for Growth introduced report number SEG23, explaining that Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) were now nationally widespread and acknowledged as a positive way to support the growth and development of an area’s economy. In Grantham the proposals had been put together by Go Grantham Limited, which was a business-led partnership, and were focussed on enhancing the economic wellbeing of the town. He explained that the Council was being asked to consider whether or not it supported the Grantham BID as a business rate payer in the BID area. He added that if the BID was successful, the Council would be required to pay a 1.5% levy of approximately £11,000. Councillors would need to judge whether the potential benefits of the BID would outweigh the additional costs. In moving the recommendations, he explained that members would have the opportunity to cast their individual vote in order to determine how the Council should vote in the ballot, explaining that as it was a secret ballot, each member would be invited to cast their vote privately. If the vote of the Council was made in public, it could potentially influence how other businesses in the area vote. He also proposed the recommendation that would give authority to the Leader of the Council to complete the postal ballot votes received in respect of each of the Council’s business properties within the BID area. This was seconded.

A small number of members spoke about feedback that they had received from some of the businesses and concerns about affordability of business rates with the additional levy. Despite these concerns, several members who spoke supported the principle of a BID as a mechanism to invest directly in the town and suggested that the extra investment was relatively small given the potential benefits for the whole community.

An electronic vote was taken on the delegation of authority to complete the postal ballots on behalf of the Council; this was carried.

In order to enable a secret ballot, the Chairman proposed the suspension of standing order 14.13.3 for this item only, replacing the use of the electronic voting system with a voting slip for each member . This was seconded and on being put to the vote, the suspension of standing order 14.13.3  was carried. Ballot papers were handed out to all Councillors, who were given a few moments to complete their ballot papers. The slips were then collected in a ballot box, which was sealed. Members were advised that they would be able to find out how the Council had voted once the ballot had been completed and the result announced.

Council will receive a presentation on proposals relating to Go Grantham Business Improvement District from Stuart Pigram, Simon Beardsley, Sonia Braybrook and Rachel Chadwick.

The Chairman welcomed Stuart Pigram, Simon Beardsley, Sonia Braybrook and Rachel Chadwick from Go Grantham. They had been invited to give a presentation to the Council on Go Grantham’s proposals for a business improvement district (BID) in Grantham prior to the BID ballot. As a payer of non-domestic rates within the proposed BID area, the Council would be entitled to vote in the ballot, with the Council forming its view at the meeting to be held on 17 November 2016.

The presentation began with an explanation of what a BID was: businesses within a defined area would be required to pay an additional levy to fund projects within that area. Projects could range from environmental enhancements to collaborative learning and development. Any BID projects should be in addition to services already provided by the district council, not in lieu of them.

A prospectus for the BID had been produced, which was constructed around four main themes, including examples of how a BID could provide benefits:

·         Marketing Grantham – providing a website and central hub for businesses in the area and providing a high quality, targeted marketing, PR and promotion strategy

·         Supporting Grantham – business investment and support, business cost reduction through collaboration, town centre wardens and crime reduction schemes

·         Working in Grantham – providing training support for businesses, providing training courses to assist improve recruitment and retention of local people and partnership working

·         Visiting Grantham – promoting the heritage and history of the area, supporting events and festivals and shopping locally

Included within the presentation was a summary of the consultation that had taken place to date, with a brief explanation on the methodology used.

The BID levy would be set at 1.5% of a business’ rateable value, with an exemption for businesses with a rateable value of less than £7,000. Over the five-year life of the proposed BID £2.6m income would be raised through the levy.

Members were advised of the timeline for the BID ballot. Notice of the ballot would be sent by 19 October 2016, ballot papers would be issued on 2 November 2016, votes would need to be cast by 30 November 2016 and the result of the ballot would be announced on 1 December 2016. For the BID to be successful over 50% of those businesses who voted would need to vote in favour of the BID with those businesses that voted in favour of the BID representing over 50% of the rateable value of those who voted.

Within the wider context of South Kesteven, the Go Grantham representatives stated that the BID would help attract visitors to Grantham, from which the surrounding areas would also experience benefit, increasing the spend in the local area.

Simon Beardsley, who represented the Lincolnshire Chamber of Trade and Commerce spoke about the Chamber’s experiences on other BIDs that had been successful together with those that had not been successful. He advised Councillors that the Chamber had provided funding to support development work, reflecting its confidence in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40