Issue - meetings

Business Improvement Districts for Lancaster & Morecambe

Meeting: 26/07/2011 - Cabinet (Item 27)

27 Business Improvement Districts for Lancaster and Morecambe PDF 163 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Policy

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Policy to provide background information on the concept of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and update members on work towards the establishment of BIDs in Lancaster and Morecambe.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

Although the report was primarily provided to update Members the following options could be considered:

	Advantages	Disadvantages	Risks
Option 1: Do nothing	No advantages.	Loss of credibility with business community. No contribution to council’s Corporate objectives.	Council may be in breach of statutory duties to support BID proposer as defined in BID legislation.
Option 2: Continue with preparations for introduction of BIDs in partnership with Lancaster Chamber in Lancaster and with the local trade associations in Morecambe	Successful BID should have benefits for the local authority as well as the business community. Clear and credible leadership for the business community to identify with. Potential for more effective use of council resources and innovation in town centre service delivery. Should engender a closer relationship between business community and statutory service providers. Fosters improved and clearer communication and genuine partnership with business Effective opportunity for local businesses to have a voice on subjects relating to the environment in which they trade.	No guarantee that BID ballot in Lancaster or Morecambe would ultimately be successful. Allocated resource for BID proposer/partnership to move to ‘BID readiness’ will need to be supplemented by council officer resources. Relatively long lead in period to ensure best possible chance of success.	Council and officer resources required pre and post ballot which need to be fully defined and understood. Implications for council and other statutory services of committing to ‘baseline’ service provision over BID lifetime may reduce flexibility.
Option 3: Explore alternative routes / partnerships for introduction of BIDs in Lancaster and Morecambe	Could have same benefits as Option 2 although development could take longer.	As Option 2 but with the addition that it is difficult to see an alternative partnership/route to BID implementation that has credibility in the business community.	As Option 2 but even more difficult and time consuming to get to ballot stage

Option 2 was the Officer preferred option. There was a clear way forward for Lancaster BID and emerging consensus for progression of the Morecambe BID. The BID officer working group should ensure that any issues arising from BID Proposal development and pre/post ballot resource implications for both Lancaster and Morecambe were addressed in partnership with the BID proposer.

The Lancaster Chamber and NWLCC had confirmed that the resources agreed for the Lancaster BID were sufficient for the purposes of BID Proposal development. This follows the experience of NWLCC in successfully progressing the Preston BID through both proposal and implementation stages. The outcome of a BID ballot could not be guaranteed but officers believed the relationships being built and the direction emerging gave the best ... view the full minutes text for item 27