Feb 1, 2013 - economic development in London, it must understand where BIDs are, ...... Riverside London App) providing
February 2013
London’s Business Improvement Districts A report prepared for the GLA by Shared Intelligence and the Association of Town & City Management
Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 1 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 2 1
Introduction to the research ....................................................................................................... 4
2
BIDs in Context .......................................................................................................................... 10
3
London’s BIDs Today: Activities and Services ............................................................................ 19
4
London’s BIDs Today: Structure and Operation ........................................................................ 28
5
London’s BIDs today ‐ Economic Impact ................................................................................... 39
6
Establishing New BIDs ............................................................................................................... 45
7
The Future of BIDs: New Service Models .................................................................................. 47
8
Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 52
Appendix: Data .................................................................................................................................. 55
1
Acknowledgements Shared Intelligence and the Association of Town & City Management (ATCM) would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this report. In particular we would like to thank the individual BID managers and representatives, local authority officers, and members of other organisations who have taken the time to talk to us, complete our survey, attend the BIDs workshop held in January 2013, or – in many cases – all three of the above. The engagement of all of these people has proven invaluable in helping to understand the challenges faced by London’s BIDs and to articulate a comprehensive response. We would also like to thank British BIDs for allowing us to quote from their most recent survey of UK BIDs.
2
Executive summary There are currently 32 BIDs in London and the Mayor has made a policy commitment both to supporting existing BIDs and to supporting the development of new BIDs – including a target of having 50 BIDs in the capital by 2016. The purpose of this work is to help the GLA understand the functions and operation of current BIDs and the direction of change likely to impact on BIDs in the coming years, and to look at how the GLA can support their continuing development. BID areas include more than 7.6% of London’s firms and 11.3% of London’s total employment. The BID levy across London is £20m annually, with a further £5m additional income supporting their work. BIDs vary dramatically due to enormous differences in income, geographic size and the sectoral composition of member businesses. Therefore it is important to recognise that individual BIDs differ in what they do. However, they share some common features and challenges. Those areas where BIDs are located have improved their economic performance in recent years. Turnover generated by firms in these areas grew by 4% between 2005 and 2012, and total employment fell only slightly, while across London over this period turnover growth was static and employment declined sharply. There are currently 17 sites where local authorities are considering inviting businesses to develop new BIDs, and further areas where BIDs might be suitable. This is in addition to five areas where BIDs are being actively developed. The prospects for the BID sector are therefore very strong. The continued expansion in the number of BIDs is limited by their requirement for a strong local business base. BIDs have been very successful, but they will not always be the best model. There are a number of other successful Town Centre Partnership models which are more suitable in some circumstances. London BIDs are strengthening their ability to lever additional funding and demonstrate their impact. They are diversifying their income, functions and responsibilities. Questions for the development of BIDs into the future relate to BIDs becoming strategic, visionary agencies working to transform local areas, their relationship with local residents, and their potential support for neighbouring centres.
Recommendations Supporting the development of new BIDs and other partnership structures Develop a formal GLA Group policy position in support of BIDs, highlighting the Mayor’s support and acknowledging their role in supporting the growth and regeneration of London.
Develop a standard baseline agreement between the GLA Group and BIDs which specifies the type and nature of support that the GLA will provide to BIDs.
Update and make available the set of BID tools, templates and resources previously contained in the LDA funded London BIDs programme.
Influence the development of the proposed national BID Loan fund and ensuring that the government’s proposals reflect key issues and concerns related to London.
3
Depending on the shape of national proposals, consider the feasibility of establishing a separate London loan fund to operate alongside the national fund for supporting the establishment of new BIDs.
Establish a Mayoral grant which would support the start‐up costs of establishing new BIDs, working with those areas that have indicated that they are considering establishing a new BIDs and inviting proposals from partnerships of Local Authorities and businesses to meet some of the set up costs.
Supporting the growth and development of existing BIDs Ensure that all BIDs are fully aware of all future GLA Group funding opportunities and that wherever possible, BIDs are considered as eligible applicants or partners for relevant funds. Where this is not possible, consideration should be given to involving BIDs in the decision making process, using their local knowledge and experience to inform funding allocations.
Consider how to stimulate the market for BID to BID peer support, encouraging experienced BID managers to commercialise their knowledge and support the establishment of new BIDs and development of existing BIDs.
Organise and host round tables, chaired by senior GLA officials on specific topics such as property owners contributions, or links between BIDs and national retailers.
Host an annual round table with CLG and other government departments, facilitating the engagement of London BIDs in national policy debates.
Improving engagement and supporting shared learning Establish regular communication channels between the GLA Group and BIDs, covering policy development and funding opportunities.
Nominate a key officer in each of the Mayoral Agencies to act as a first point of contact for BIDs across London.
Support identification and dissemination of best practice – including support for evaluation of specific BID activities.
Encourage BIDs to develop service performance benchmarks that allow them to learn from each other and compare performance.
Working with local authorities and BIDs to support new models Identify a small number of areas in which to work with BIDs and corresponding local authorities to explore extended BID models, including testing out new relationships with local authorities and residents, and new funding and service delivery models, and possible new functions and powers.
4
1 Introduction to the research 1.1
This report details the findings of research conducted for the Greater London Authority (GLA) by Shared Intelligence and the Association of Town & City Management (ATCM), on Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in London. The purpose of this work is to help the GLA understand the current and future activities of London’s BIDs, and their potential to contribute to economic growth and other objectives in London; and look at the implications of the work for the GLA in relation to its future support for new and potential BIDs.
1.2
The report has been prepared in a period of very slow recovery from recession. Although the London economy has not fared as badly as some other parts of the country and some shopping centres are still faring well, many retail areas across the capital are still experiencing high levels of vacancy rates and the future of town centres is a live question. The economic challenges also include massive change in the retail sector, with new enhanced shopping centres, and on‐line trading exacerbating the challenges for traditional town centres. There is widespread concern about the health of these areas and recognition of the important role they play in local economies and communities. Industrial areas are more insulated from these broad trends, but are nonetheless affected by depressed demand.
1.3
The role of BIDs in this context is important. As private‐sector led and funded agencies, operating at the local level to improve trading conditions in 30+ areas across London, BIDs are an important part of the local economic development scene. Examining their role, functions and impact will help in identifying what role they could play in the future, and how the GLA and other agencies can work effectively with them in order to support local centres.
1.4
The Government is strongly committed to supporting the revitalisation of high streets and town centres, and recognises BIDs as a key instrument for doing so. The Portas Review1 strongly endorses the contribution of BIDs to town centre management. It recommends strengthening the power of BIDs through developing ‘Super‐BIDs’ with additional powers and an enhanced strategic focus and reforming BID legislation to allow property‐owners to participate in BID decision‐making. The Government is in the process of introducing a £500,000 start‐up fund to help establish new BIDs, and has committed to exploring property‐based and cross‐boundary BIDs which would encourage new BID models including tourism BIDs. As local private‐sector led institutions, BIDs fit well with the localism agenda, and the Localism Act 2012 introduced a number of initiatives such as neighbourhood planning, and the community right to challenge, which could result in BIDs taking on new functions.
Mayoral policy commitments 1.5
The Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy2 sets out how he works in partnership with public and private bodies to achieve his vision of an even more productive and successful City, in which companies can flourish, and all Londoners have the opportunity to find fulfilling jobs. As part of 1
Mary Portas (2011) The Portas Review: an independent review into the future of our high streets
2
GLA (2010) The Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy for London
5 this, the GLA has committed to supporting the activity of BIDs and the creation of new BIDs. The Economic Development Strategy stated that ‘the Mayor will encourage the continued designation of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), which are effective vehicles for collaborative working, in town centres and elsewhere.’ 1.6
The London Plan 3 states that in Outer London the Mayor would support ‘prioritising improvements to the business environment, including…partnership‐based approaches like business improvement districts.’ With regard to town centres, the London Plan recognised the need to ‘support and encourage town centre management, partnerships and strategies including business improvement districts to promote safety, security and environmental quality.’ The London Plan also noted that ‘sensitive town centre management, including business improvement districts in appropriate locations, should seek to resolve any tensions which may result from a varied mix of uses.’
1.7
Mayor Boris Johnson’s re‐election manifesto4 also endorses BIDs, and makes a commitment to: ‘support the creation of further BIDs, working with boroughs and businesses to double the number to 50 in the next four years, focusing on town centres such as Bromley, Enfield, Richmond and Romford.’
1.8
The London Assembly’s recent Economy Committee report into Empty Shops5 also recognises the important role that BIDs can play. The report states that ‘High streets under single ownership can adopt a more strategic approach to boost performance. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) can achieve this coordination in high streets in multiple ownership, and have done so in many parts of London.’ The report further recommends that ‘to help increase the number of BIDs, the Mayor should support London‐wide training for business groups and ensure GLA Group bodies cooperate fully with existing BIDs.’ The report also notes that the government should consider giving BIDs (as well as councils) compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers to improve the functioning of their areas, and that ‘there is consensus in support of allowing landlords to join BIDs.’
1.9
Above and beyond the policy support mentioned above, the GLA already engages with BIDs in a number of different ways, continuing a long history of engagement with BIDs under the London Development Agency (LDA). The Economic Business Policy Unit holds regular biannual meetings with BIDs which present and discuss key policy issues and activities. The GLA’s Cultural Team has been working with a number of BIDs to develop cultural events and activities, and is keen to expand this activity and support more BIDs to expand their cultural activities.
1.10
The GLA group is investing nearly £250 million to boost local trade and activity in London’s high streets, delivering growth and new jobs. This includes significant contributions from Transport for London and over £110 million from the Mayor’s Regeneration Fund and the Outer London Fund. Less than a year after these funds launched, they have been boosted by around £57 million from other private and public sector partners. The money is funding a wide range of 3
GLA (2011) The London Plan: Spatial Development Plan for London – July 2011 (Policy 2.7, p49) Boris Johnson (2012) Boris Johnson Mayoral Manifesto 2012 5 London Assembly (2013) Open for Business: Empty Shops on London’s High Streets – March 2013 4
6 physical improvements and support for business and voluntary groups, creating apprenticeships and job training initiatives, all with the aim of strengthening local places. Furthermore, the GLA is providing £100,000 grant funding to each of three Round Two Portas Pilots within London, one of which is being managed by the Waterloo BID (The Cut and Lower Marsh). 1.11
In addition, the GLA has funded green infrastructure audits in 11 Central London BIDs to identify opportunities for increasing green cover and is now working with these BIDs to support the delivery of identified projects. The audit process has helped generate interest in and awareness of urban greening, encouraging BID members to invest in green infrastructure as part of their longer‐term refurbishments and regeneration strategies. The GLA is also working with partners and BIDs to engage SMEs around issues such as food‐waste, climate adaptation and flood risk.
Research Objectives 1.12
While the broad consensus on BIDs is positive, actual evidence on their effects on such areas as service delivery, business performance, and local economic growth is scarce. There is a need to better understand and quantify what effects BIDs actually have on their local areas. In particular, it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of BIDs compared to other forms of town centre management – for example, existing Town Centre Management Partnerships, and Town Teams, which are also a focus of policy after the Portas Review. BIDs are relatively recent, and still evolving rapidly. BIDs could take enhanced roles in strategic planning, and attracting investment; or take over management of council services or commercialise their own services; or offer additional services such as supporting resident and community initiatives.
1.13
The GLA recognises that if it is to engage more actively with BIDs as a means to encourage economic development in London, it must understand where BIDs are, what they do and how they are developing, the contribution they make to the local economy, and the potential to increase their impact with additional support.
1.14
This research was commissioned to:
1.15
Analyse the functions of current BIDs in London;
Make comparisons of BID areas with adjacent non‐BID areas and consider the impact BIDs have on neighbouring areas;
Analyse what makes a BID successful, areas for development, and knowledge transfer between London BIDs;
Review alternative models for supporting town centres and other business areas including the concept of Super BIDs and the government’s response to the Portas Review;
Identify future planned BID developments;
Consider what support might be provided for BIDs to increase their impact.
This research is not a comparative evaluation of BID performance. Rather, the aim is to help the GLA better understand the current BID landscape, and how it may intervene to support BIDs in their efforts to improve their areas.
7
Methodology 1.16
1.17
This research was conducted by Shared Intelligence and the Association of Town & City Management (ATCM) between October 2012 and January 2013. Policy and Literature Review We began with a review of relevant policy and strategies at the London and national level to understand the context for the development of BIDs in London. This included the Portas Review on the Future of High Streets, the London Plan and the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy and the Mayor’s Manifesto commitments.
1.18
We reviewed existing UK and international literature on BIDs, to understand the existing evidence base and how this may inform our understanding of BIDs in London. We also reviewed international best practice and recent developments, especially the North American model, to understand how the BID model can vary and how it has developed over time. This review was used to produce a discussion paper which is incorporated into Chapter 2 of this report.
1.19
We undertook a systematic review of existing information on London BIDs through a review of each of the BID websites to gather all available information on size, funding, balloting, objectives and services offered. This was used to produce a comprehensive database which, when aligned with the results from the surveys, offered a detailed information resource on the characteristics of London’s BIDs.
1.20
BID Survey We conducted an e‐survey of the 306 London BIDs present at the start of the research7, as well as a selection of 15 comparator BIDs outside London. This looked at finance, engagement with non levy‐payers, performance monitoring, range of functions and future development plans. The survey was followed up by phone and e‐mail. The survey was completed by 23 out of 30 London BIDs. The survey was also completed by eleven out‐of‐London BIDs8.
6
Not all respondents answered all questions so results are reported differently throughout this report. Streatham BID was not approved until after the survey was completed – so could not participate. 7 Since the survey was carried out, Streatham BID and Baker Street BID have been approved by local businesses. 8 Non‐London BIDs that completed the survey were: bID4bURY; Brilliant Brighton; Broadmead, Bristol; Chichester BID; Colmore Business District; Coventry City Centre BID; Great Yarmouth BID; Lincoln City Centre BID; Mansfield BID; Stratforward; Worcester BID
8
1.21
1.22
1.23
Local Authority Survey We also surveyed Local Authority regeneration, economic development or BID officers at the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London Corporation, to ask them about:
Engagement with BIDs – including financial and in‐kind support, support for renewal and new BID formation;
Benefits of BIDs – Including value for money, economic benefits, extent to which councils can evidence BID effects;
Future BIDs; and plans for development including delivery of council services.
Again these were followed up by email and phone where necessary. We received responses from 15 out of 16 boroughs that have BIDs and 11 out of the 17 boroughs that do not yet have BIDs (which in some cases were currently developing or considering developing BIDs). BID Case Study and Stakeholder Interviews We selected a cross‐section of London BIDs to produce 10 more in‐depth case studies. These were: Bayswater BID; Better Bankside; Croydon Town Centre BID; E11 BID (Leytonstone); Ealing Broadway BID; Camden Town Unlimited; Inmidtown; Kingstonfirst; Love Wimbledon; Waterloo Quarter. Within each of these BIDs we undertook face‐to‐face semi‐structured interviews with BID managers and (where available) BID chairs or board members. These interviews covered:
Internal set up, capacity and governance arrangements;
Resources, impact and achievements;
Engagement with residents and non‐levy paying businesses;
Future plans and aspirations; and
Views on potential GLA support.
1.24
We also undertook short telephone interviews with a total of six BID member businesses across these BIDs whose details we received from our interviewees.
1.25
In addition, we interviewed stakeholders in other organisations including the Cross River Partnership; London Councils; South Bank Employers Group; Crouch End Partnership; the North London Strategic Partnership; and Local Authorities.
1.26
1.27
Analysis of Economic Performance As part of the research, we commissioned Trends Business Research (TBR) to analyse business and economic performance in BID areas and non‐BID comparator areas. TBR has direct access to ONS detailed data sets as well as a unique database of company data on as many as 70% of the UK’s businesses, with information on characteristics including employment, turnover and business activity. These data sources allow TBR to undertake detailed analysis of business performance over time, and in defined geographical areas that do not conform to normal statistical geographies. This allows a comparison of BID and non‐BID economic performance in a way that has not been done before in the UK. This is particularly valuable as a key gap identified in the literature is quantitative evidence of the economic impact of BIDs on their areas. Of course, associating economic benefits with the presence of a BID does not prove that the BID caused these benefits, but alongside other evidence it could strengthen the case for the benefits of BIDs.
9
1.28
1.29
Workshop A workshop was attended by over 50 representatives from 42 BIDs, local authorities and other organisations 28 January 2013. We presented initial headline findings from the research and facilitated a discussion about the implications of the findings for the future of GLA support. Engagement with BIDs and Local Authorities Through either surveys, interviews, or the workshops sessions, we have engaged with 27 out of the 30 London BIDs present at the start of the research, as well as 15 out of 16 local authorities with BIDs in their area and 11 out of 17 local authorities without BIDs in their area. Full details are given in a table in the Data Annex.
10
2 BIDs in Context Introduction to BIDs 2.1
Business Improvement Districts are local organisations which collect a compulsory levy from businesses (or property‐owners) in a defined spatial area, represent the interests of the business community, and deliver additional services and area improvements of benefit to business. They represent a self‐financing mechanism for local business communities to improve the trading environment, over and above any support from the public sector.
2.2
BIDs typically cover small, geographically defined areas, such as high streets, town centres or industrial estates. They are incorporated, based on a ballot of local businesses, for fixed, multi‐ year terms (typically five years in the UK). However, experience suggests that once incorporated, BIDs rarely dissolve and are usually renewed repeatedly. BIDs are business‐led, but depend on local authorities to enforce collection of the levy. The main source of income for most BIDs is the levy; however, many BIDs use this as a base to attract additional sources of income, from the public sector, voluntary business donations and income‐generating activity.
2.3
At a most basic level, BIDs act as a point of first contact for their members; an intermediary between businesses and local authorities; and representative voice for business interests. In addition, BIDs typically offer a range of services – most commonly activities such as street cleaning, additional security and policing, and promotion and area marketing – but often stretching to others such as business support and advice, or negotiating bulk purchasing discounts for businesses. Many are involved in developing visions and strategies for their area, or delivering public realm and regeneration initiatives.
2.4
BIDs exist alongside other forms of public‐private partnership, such as town centre management (TCM) partnerships, which bring businesses and the public sector together to facilitate business competitiveness. TCM partnership schemes have become increasingly popular around the world, including in the United States, Australia, and European countries including France, Italy, Sweden and Spain. Commentators recognise this as part of a broader trend toward the business‐ led privatisation of urban management.9 The UK has various other forms of TCM partnership including Town Centre Management Partnerships, and Town Teams, which are more numerous than BIDs.
2.5
However, there are a number of key differences between BIDs and other business‐led TCM organisations. BIDs sometimes exist alongside, and do not necessarily replace, existing TCM Partnerships. BIDs can also cover areas which TCM Partnerships cannot, such as industrial estates and business parks. BIDs are privately funded, whereas TCM organisations often depend on a mix of local authority and private funding. Most crucially, BIDs have a mandate to deliver their plans and access to a long‐term, and a guaranteed source of income from their levy. This frees them up to set longer‐term objectives and concentrate resources on delivering services, 9
Cook, Ian (2009), Private sector involvement in urban governance: The case of Business Improvement Districts and Town Centre Management partnerships in England
11 rather than fundraising or justifying their activities to potential donors. The enforced levy also avoids the ‘free rider’ problem – whereby businesses can benefit from the activity of TCM organisations but avoid contributing financially to their ongoing maintenance.
Origin and Diffusion of BIDs 2.6
BIDs in their present form originated in Toronto in the 1960s. In order to overcome the difficulty of attracting finance for downtown associations, business groups in Toronto began exploring the idea of creating an organisation with the power to levy a tax on commercial property to fund downtown revitalisation. They successfully lobbied for the legislation to create this and the first BID was incorporated in 1969.
2.7
The first US BID, the New Orleans Development District, was formed in 1975. BIDs were subsequently adopted extensively in American cities including, notably, New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston and Philadelphia. There are now nearly 1,000 BIDs in the United States, with one in almost every large city; New York alone has over 60 BIDs. BID‐type organisations have now diffused internationally. BID type models have been adopted extensively in South Africa and New Zealand, as well as Australia, and parts of Central Europe, notably Albania, Germany, Ireland and Serbia. Enabling legislation is under consideration in further countries – Lithuania, Czech Republic, Poland and Romania.
2.8
The form and activity of BIDs varies from country to country. In South Africa security is a major priority, with nearly three quarters of BID budgets spent in this area. All South African BIDs have programmes in security and physical maintenance, whereas a smaller proportion (under 20%) have activities around capital improvements and consumer marketing. In contrast, in Canada, the US and New Zealand consumer marketing is the most commonly offered service. In Australia and Japan some BIDs are not substantially involved in policy advocacy, whereas in other countries including the United States and Canada almost all are in some form.10 Another area of variation is organisational structure and performance measures. In South Africa BIDs are particularly strong at measuring and evaluating performance – with over 80% of BIDs implementing regular performance indicators of some sort – while in others, such as New Zealand and Japan, the use of such indicators is rare.
2.9
Despite this, BIDs around the world have more similarities than differences. The adoption of BIDs has been driven by international exchange of policies and best practice, and BIDs around the world are converging toward a similar institutional model with common ‘role identities, operating strategies, and organizational cultures11.’
BIDs in the United Kingdom 2.10
The UK is a relative latecomer to the BID scene. The introduction of BIDs in the UK came under serious consideration from the 1990s, with recognition of the inadequacy of private sector funding for existing town centre management schemes, and the success of the BID model in 10
Hoyt (2003), The Business Improvement District: An Internationally Diffused Approach to Revitalization in International Downtown Association 1‐65 11 Hoyt and Gopal‐Agge (2007), The Business Improvement District Model: A Balanced Review of Contemporary Debates in Geography Compass 1/4 (2007): 946‐958
12 North America.12 Central Government first considered introducing BIDs in the UK in 1992. In subsequent years the Association of Town & City Management (ATCM) and other organisations lobbied the Government extensively to allow BIDs. 2.11
The agenda gained momentum again in the late 1990s, and legislation to allow BIDs in the UK was finally introduced as part of the Local Government Act 2003, and UK Business Improvement Regulations in 2004. The ATCM was entrusted with administering a pilot project and selected 23 sites located in cities such as Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Liverpool, Lincoln and London. The first ballot to adopt a BID took place in Kingston in November 2004, resulting in the formation of Kingstonfirst in 2005.
2.12
UK BIDs are based closely on the US model, but with some important differences. Most significantly, whereas in North American BIDs the levy is charged to property owners, in the United Kingdom – with the exception of Scotland – it is typically paid by business occupiers. This was because the US system was deemed incompatible with the existing system of business rates. BID levies in England and Wales are charged through the business rates system as an additional cost.
2.13
The incorporation of BIDs in England and Wales is based on a ‘dual‐key test’: to be successful, first, a proposal must be approved by the majority of businesses in an area; and the combined rateable value of businesses in favour must be greater than that of the businesses against. The intention is to prevent large companies forcing through BID proposals against the wishes of smaller businesses, and vice versa. The legislative framework for BIDs in the United Kingdom is designed to be extremely flexible – recognising the need for locally driven plans, and there is significant scope for BIDs to set their own objectives and priorities, and innovate in the type of activities and services provided.
2.14
The number of BIDs in the UK has grown ten‐fold since 2005. At the time of writing there are 140 BIDs in the United Kingdom, including 32 in London. This includes 105 Town Centre BIDs, 23 Industrial Estate BIDs, four commercial BIDs, three mixed area BIDs, three leisure‐focused BIDs, and one tourism‐focused BID. The number of BIDs in the UK continues to grow.
12
Cook, Ian 2009, Private sector involvement in urban governance: The case of Business Improvement Districts and Town Centre Management partnerships in England in Geoforum 40 (5), pp. 930‐940
13
BID Activities and Services 2.15
Typical BID activities may include:
Basic area improvements – Street furniture, tree planting, minor public realm upgrades, temporary decoration and Christmas lighting.
Cleanliness – Additional street cleaning, on‐demand cleaning services or extra waste collection for business.
Safety and security – Additional policing; private security; CCTV and business radio networks; signage and lighting improvements; local security partnerships; Pubwatch or night‐time safety schemes.
Area marketing – Branding or creating a coherent identity for an area; producing promotional material; running promotional campaigns; local discount schemes; ambassadors or information kiosks.
Events and Attractions – Promoting or helping organise festivals, events, public art, markets or other attractions.
Business support and services – Business support and advice; business training; networking events; business intelligence; business discounts, i.e. through bulk purchasing agreements.
Community engagement and CSR – Supporting business CSR programs, engaging with resident and community groups, offering work placements and apprenticeships.
Environmental sustainability – Recycling and waste collection; support and advice to business on sustainability, such as energy auditing.
Regeneration – Leading masterplanning or area visioning; funding, attracting funding or lobbying for public realm upgrades and other regeneration projects.
2.16
A ‘clean and green’ agenda of basic area improvements, cleanliness, safety and security, and marketing and promotion are the ‘bread‐and‐butter’ activity of most BIDs. However, many BIDs are involved in at least some of the other activities listed above.
2.17
Industrial Estate BIDs typically focus on a narrower range of interventions, around cleanliness; safety and security; transport; and occasionally business services. Small to medium‐sized Town Centre BIDs include these core activities but often with an expanded focus on marketing and promotion. Larger Town Centre or City Centre BIDs may have a much wider focus, including funding or co‐ordinating significant capital projects, setting area strategy, and providing a wide range of business support services.
2.18
BID activities may vary further based on the business strengths or profile of their areas. For example, central city areas with a large number of commercial levy‐payers as well as retail outlets may develop a focus on areas such as business support and collective purchasing. Areas with strong leisure and night‐time economies may create BID proposals tailored to support these sectors.
Successes and limitations of BIDs 2.19
BIDs enjoy wide support among policy‐makers in many countries, and academics largely regard them as an effective and desirable way to support business competitiveness. Studies have
14 shown the ability of BIDs to achieve specific objectives in a variety of areas – including increasing property values, and stimulating local retail growth. 2.20
For BIDs to generate sufficient resources to allow them to employ staff and have the capacity for action, they have to be established in locations with a substantial business base, and a business base that is dependent on the local trading environment. There are examples of smaller BIDs, notably the e11bid (in Leytonstone), but they are limited in the functions they can offer.
2.21
Academics have explored the reasons for the success and extensive adoption of BIDs.13 A key strength of BIDs is their flexibility and local fit; they can take a variety of sizes, set a variety of priorities, and draw on diverse sources of funding.14 As mentioned earlier, they offer significant advantages over other TCM and business partnerships in having a guaranteed income and the ability to set longer‐term direction. The success of BIDs has also been cast as part of a broader political trend toward the private sector taking a more central role in activities traditionally restricted to the public sphere. This is driven by the belief that business leaders are best placed to devise and lead policies favourable to economic growth and wealth creation.15
2.22
A number of academics have criticised BIDs (and other public‐private partnerships) as undemocratic, giving the private sector too much control over delivering services and managing public space. 16 Critics point out that BIDs represent the priorities of business elites, and may pursue agendas that are detrimental to residents, or users of areas. Activities undertaken by BIDs – such as homogenous branding, or private security patrols – may promote local businesses, but create over‐regulated or sanitised public spaces which lose some of their character.17 Critics also argue that BIDs create wealth‐based inequalities in the delivery of public services – since BID areas receive greater spending than neighbouring residential areas, or commercial areas that are not thriving enough to support a BID.18 The activity of BIDs may also create so‐called ‘spillover’ effects. Extra security and policing may simply displace crime elsewhere, causing problems for adjacent neighbourhoods. The increase in property prices may drive up rents to the detriment of local residents or smaller business tenants.
2.23
The counter‐argument is that in practice, BID activities do tend to have primarily positive outcomes for local residents and areas users – through improving visitor experience, improving safety and cleanliness, and supporting local economies. In addition, there have been various experiments internationally with granting residents influence over BID activities. Nevertheless, it is important to note the arguments that have been made against BIDs as there have been 13
The arguments below are drawn from Hoyt and Gopal‐Agge (2007), The Business Improvement District Model: A Balanced Review of Contemporary Debates in Geography Compass 1/4 (2007): 946‐958 14 See Lloyd et al. al. (2003), Business improvement districts, planning and urban regeneration. International Planning Studies 8, pp. 295‐321 15 Cook, Ian 2009, Private sector involvement in urban governance: The case of Business Improvement Districts and Town Centre Management partnerships in England in Geoforum 40 (5) 16 Again, the arguments below are drawn from Hoyt and Gopal‐Agge (2007), The Business Improvement District Model: A Balanced Review of Contemporary Debates in Geography Compass 1/4 (2007): 946‐958 17 Steel and Symes (2005), The Privatisation of Public Space? The American experience of business improvement districts and their relationship to local governance in Local Government Studies 31 (3), pp. 321‐334 18 See Briffault (1999). A Government for our time? Business improvement districts and urban governance in Columbia Law Review 99 (2), pp. 365‐477
15 examples of BID proposals, including in London, meeting resistance where they cut across the existing activities of resident groups. 2.24
It has also been argued that BIDs have limited capacity. With BIDs still relatively new in the UK, they are still evolving as organisations. Strong management practices have not always been implemented, and BID management is often under considerable time and resource pressure.19 Smaller BIDs in particular may be effective at delivering basic services, but less so at longer‐term projects or delivering the kind of clear strategic vision which the Portas Review recognises as essential for the success of Town Centres.20
Challenges 2.25
Many participants in this study noted the challenges around smaller BIDs, or BIDs in less competitive areas, which may have difficulty becoming financially sustainable or developing their services. Nevertheless, there are examples of smaller BIDs – notably e11bid – which have been very effective. The recently established New Addington BID – London’s smallest, and with the smallest levy income of any BID in the country – will serve as a test of whether such small BIDs can be viable.
2.26
Other sites may be suitable for BIDs but already be well‐served by existing business organisations or local authority TCM services. For example, LB Haringey noted that each of its five district centres already have active TCM organisations or strong business and trader forums, questioning the need for BIDs.
2.27
For Town Centre partnership models to work it is essential that they can garner support and work within the strategic context of the location. To provide an improved trading environment for businesses, support is required both from the local authority and the business community, whatever type of partnership is in place. As with any other partnership organisation, there are a number of requirements for them to function effectively. These include a vision and plan for the area agreed across the partners, a clear and effective organisational structure with lines of accountability and good relationship with the local authority and other partners such as the Police.
2.28
For many Town Centre Management structures the key issues are the ability to deliver and accountability. The ability to deliver is dependent upon viable projects and services and sustainable funding in order to develop and maintain them. For many partnerships survival is built on a cocktail of funding which is transient. This usually includes a mixture of Local Authority and business contributions, sponsorship and grants. Without the security of a sustainable income it is difficult to plan and deliver the projects and services which have been identified and agreed by the partnership.
2.29
However, these same economic and policy trends also raise challenges for the UK’s BIDs. Poorer business performance in the recession reduces levy income and makes it more difficult to justify levies to businesses; and the economic climate and restricted public spending also make it 19
Gretzel et al. al. (2010), Business Improvement Districts: Best Practices in Policy, Structure and Collections: Summary Findings from Interviews – prepared for the California Travel and Tourism Commission 20 The Lyons Inquiry into Local Government (2007)
16 harder to attract additional funding from the public sector and other donors. Many BIDs were developed before the recession when these pressures were less severe.21 The challenge is exacerbated in the UK as the cost is not spread against all business stakeholders including property owners. 2.30
The evidence suggests the BID model has been relatively resilient in the face of these pressures, as businesses still appreciate the benefits BIDs bring. However, grant funding has been particularly hard hit.22 Consequently, GVA Grimley suggests that BIDs ‘will need to become more adaptable and have a stronger focus on value for money’. There may also be a case for changes to BID regulations to make it easier to generate income.23
2.31
The 2011 Nationwide BID Survey found that while many BIDs were considering the impact of localism, many were uncertain how to respond. Pressures on budgets and the need to co‐ operate with other, community‐led local institutions will make transparency and accountability even more important for the future of BIDs.24
Alternative Partnership Models 2.32
It has long been recognised that partnership working is the best approach to ensuring locations have the ability to integrate their functions and continually move forward. Partnerships offer the opportunity to engage with a variety of stakeholders on an equal footing. Working with partners to identify a set of common goals and agree a vision and plan which will draw on skills, resources and expertise of the group and deliver tangible impacts.
2.33
A number of models have been developed over the last 2 decades under the generic term of Town Centre Management. These fall into 2 main categories, local authority led partnerships and private sector led partnerships. There are a variety of combinations of partnership structures and the table overleaf outlines the key strands for each model.
2.34
The benefits of the formal BID model over less formal partnerships include:
the necessity to engage a large proportion of the business community;
the development of a mandate for action;
a clear lifespan with continued funding throughout that period;
legislative underpinning conferring legitimacy;
consideration of the need for a critical mass of business support.
21
De Magalhaes, Claudio (2011), BIDs, Economic Recession and the Future of Stakeholder‐Led Public Realm Management 22 De Magalhaes, Claudio (2011), BIDs, Economic Recession and the Future of Stakeholder‐Led Public Realm Management 23 GVA Grimley (2010), Central London’s Business Improvement Districts 24 Data sourced from the Nationwide BID Survey (2011) with permission from British BIDs as the copyright owner.
17 Local Authority Led Partnerships
Private Sector Led Partnerships
Type
Funding
Type
Funding
Informal town partnership – Facilitated by TCM
LA funds TCM and provides TCM budget
Informal town partnership – Facilitated by TCM
Chamber of Commerce or similar organisation funds
Informal town partnership – Facilitated by TCM
Mixture of LA funds and membership scheme or specific business contributions
Town Partnership set up as a limited company or CIC
TCM Membership scheme for TCM budget Staff employed by company funded by grants, income generating activities and membership
BID
Staff employed by BID and funded by BID levy
2.35
Where BIDs are not suitable or supported by the business community, alternative partnership structures such as TCM Partnerships, business and trader forums, or Town Teams may fulfil some of the same functions. There are several examples in London of non‐BID organisations which serve many of the same roles as a BID.
2.36
At one end of the spectrum are smaller local partnerships which, as they are not formally incorporated, depend on in‐kind contributions and income from events and advertising as well as small donations from members. These organisations can help local firms develop a coherent partnership approach to promoting an area. However, the lack of a compulsory levy makes it more difficult to generate consistent funding and limits their ability to guarantee service delivery over a longer period. Without formal structures, these organisations tend to be more reliant on the continued involvement of key individuals and firms.
2.37
Nonetheless, the impact these groups can make should not be underestimated and in some areas where establishing a BID would be unsustainable or contentious, these kinds of organisations can offer a valuable forum for action. The Crouch End Partnership is a good example of how a small partnership can generate positive local change. Since the Partnership started in 2007, they have carried out a number of activities of benefit to the local business community, including: introducing a loyalty card scheme, staging a number of promotional events for the area to attract visitors and establishing a revitalised brand for Crouch End.
2.38
At the other end of the spectrum are organisations based on alliances between small numbers of large employers, which are able to pool financial contributions to benefit the local area. South Bank Employers’ Group is a successful example of this model. South Bank Employers’ Group was
18 founded in 1994 to address the challenges around London’s South Bank area. 18 members – including large employers and landowners ‐ now contribute to the Group, which carries out a number of activities, including actions around planning, crime, environment, and homelessness. The Group has played a major role in the rejuvenation of the South Bank. 2.39
The advantage of this kind of model is that a greater consensus can be achieved through having fewer members with shared goals. A lack of balloting means that these organisations can focus on long‐term interventions. However, in practice there may be limited numbers of areas which could benefit from such a model, due to the need for significant contributions from members.
Summary and conclusions 2.40
BIDs are a self‐financing mechanism for local business communities to improve the trading environment, over and above any support from the public sector. They originated in North America, as agencies set up to fund city centre revitalisation.
2.41
In the UK, legislation to allow BIDs was introduced under the Local Government Act 2003, and UK Business Improvement Regulations in 2004. There are now 32 BIDs in London. A ‘clean and green’ agenda of basic area improvements, cleanliness, safety and security, and marketing and promotion are the ‘bread‐and‐butter’ activity of most BIDs. The range of activities tends to be limited by their focus on the specific interests of their levy‐paying business members. However, many are also involved in activities such as supporting local employment, or supporting particular economic development initiatives.
2.42
As the retail environment has become considerably more challenging in many areas since the recession started in 2008, the financial base for BIDs has been questioned, but no London BIDs coming up for re‐ballot has failed to secure their continuation. BIDs are continuing to develop across London as well as elsewhere, but as their number grows, they are also starting to appear in smaller town centres or other areas with a weaker financial base, where they may have less capacity to act.
2.43
BIDs are just one of a number of Town Centre improvement models. Alternative partnership structures such as TCM Partnerships, business and trader forums, or Town Teams may fulfil some of the same functions.
19
3 London’s BIDs Today: Activities and Services London’s BIDs at a Glance
25
3.1
There are currently 32 BIDs in London . BIDs exist within 16 of London’s 33 boroughs; eight of these boroughs have only one BID; Westminster, with the most, has seven. The analysis that follows looks at the 30 BIDs operating at the beginning of our research. Streatham BID and Baker Street BID, which both held successful ballots in February 2013, are not included in the subsequent analysis.
3.2
Some of the first BIDs in London were supported by the London Development Agency (LDA). The Circle Initiative programme led by Central London Partnership (CLP) was funded through £4.6 million of Single Regeneration Budget from the LDA. It supported five pilot BIDs in London bringing together eight local authorities, businesses and local communities from different areas in London. Specific aims included: raising standards of management and maintenance of the public realm, reducing crime, improving public transport, building commercial activity and local jobs. CLP led the pilot with the city of Westminster as the accountable body ‐ bringing together five partnerships ‐ Better Bankside, Waterloo Quarter, Inmidtown, Paddington BID and Heart of London ‐ that were funded over a five year period from 2001.
3.3
The first BID in London, Kingstonfirst, was incorporated in 2005, immediately after the introduction of BID legislation, and was followed by a further twelve over the next three years. Fourteen of London’s BIDs are now in their second term, and of those which have been up for renewal, all have been approved. At the start of 2013, there at least five further BIDs proposed, of which at least two will go to ballot in 2013. Beyond these, there are at least seventeen further areas identified by boroughs as potential locations for further BIDs.
3.4
Together, the areas covered by operational BIDs in London:
3.5
Contain 32,253 firms, or 7.6% of total London firms
Create £72.1bn in turnover generated by businesses, or 8.2% of London’s total business turnover
Are where 475,533 people are employed, or 11.3% of total London employment
Raise more than £20m per year in levies, and £5m in additional income
Individually, BIDs range from attracting £20,000 in annual levy income, to more than £3.4m; from representing fewer than 100 levy‐payers to more than 500; and from one staff member to more than twenty. Businesses in the New Addington BID area employ around 300 people, while those in Inmidtown employ more than 56,000. 25
See Appendix for a list of all currently established London BIDs
20
21
Number of BIDs in London 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
BID Types 3.6
When discussing the research results we group BIDs into three broad categories:
Thirteen ‘High Street and Town Centre BIDs’;
Eleven ‘City Centre BIDs’; and
Six ‘Industrial Estate’ BIDs.
3.7
The High Street and Town Centre BIDs are found in low‐to‐medium density areas with a primarily retail character. Ten are in Outer London, but three (Bayswater, Angel AIM, and Camden Town Unlimited) are found in Inner London. They range from very small (such as e11bid, with only one administrative staff member and a tightly focused work program) to much larger (such as Kingstonfirst and Croydon, with incomes of over £1m). Their activities are more oriented toward basic services aimed at supporting the vitality of these areas – including basic services such as cleaning, security and promotion – although they often pursue a more diverse set of objectives.
3.8
The City Centre BIDs are found in denser areas of Central London with a more commercial character alongside retail. These leverage larger amounts of additional income, and pursue a wider range of activities – including basic area services but stretching to more sophisticated marketing initiatives and more diverse services aimed at their commercial businesses, such as networking, training and purchasing discounts. Their size and capacity allows them to experiment with new activities and have a stronger voice in external lobbying.
3.9
Smaller City Centre BIDs earn less than £600,000 per year and employ comparable numbers of staff to the large High Street BIDs. The New West End Company however, with the largest income of all, earns over £3.4m a year, while Better Bankside, with the most staff, employs more than 15 people. Three adjacent BIDs – the Heart of London Business Alliance, New West End Partnership and Inmidtown – form a nearly contiguous area of BIDs in between the City and West End with a combined income of £7m, and accounting for more than 40% of all the firms in London BIDs. On the South Bank, Team London Bridge, Better Bankside and the Waterloo Quarter Business Alliance form another swathe of adjacent BIDs.
3.10
The Industrial Estate BIDs – all in Outer London – range in size from fewer than 80 businesses and less than £40,000 per annum in total earnings, to the larger London Riverside BID with more than 300 businesses and over £250,000 per year in levies. Generally their capacity is smaller, but
22 some have been more active in generating non‐levy income, offering more diverse business services, and demonstrating impact through a variety of measures. City Centre BIDs Heart of London Business Alliance: (Leicester Square to Piccadilly Circus)
High Street and Town Centre BIDs Camden Town Unlimited
Industrial Estate BIDs Kimpton Industrial Estate BID
Croydon BID
London Riverside Industrial BID
LOVE Wimbledon
Hainault Business Park BID
Ealing Broadway BID
Argall Avenue BID
Vauxhall One
Kingstonfirst
Garratt Business Park BID
Paddington BID
Successful Sutton
Willow Lane Industrial Estate
Inmidtown
Bayswater BID
Fitzrovia
Ilford BID
Better Bankside
E11 BID
Team London Bridge
HammersmithLondon
Waterloo Quarter Business Alliance
Bexleyheath BID
(Heart of London Business Alliance: Piccadilly and St James)
Victoria BID
Angel Aim BID New Addington
New West End Company
Streatham
Baker Street BID
Activities and Services 3.11
Different BIDs carry out a range of different activities and services. Nonetheless, there are strong similarities in the offers provided by many BIDs.
BID Activity Areas (no. of BIDs providing) Area marketing and promotion Safety and security Business support and services Cleanliness Sustainability and environment Events and attractions Basic area improvements Area vision and regeneration Community engagement and CSR 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
23 Selected BID Services (no. of BIDs providing) Waste removal and recycling Events and Attractions Promotional Material Anti‐crime partnerships CCTV Cameras Discounts and bulk purchasing Security radio systems Additional policing Environmental advice and consultancy Employment and training support Information centres or kiosks Pub/club watch Markets Business intelligence data Networking and meetup events Discount and Loyalty Cards 0
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
5
10
15
20
Basic Area Improvements At least half of BIDs were involved in making minor aesthetic improvements to their area. At least seven BIDs had made small improvements to public realm, paving, and street furniture. A similar number are involved in new tree planting or providing hanging baskets, and floral displays. Three BIDs are involved in encouraging re‐use of vacant units, and two operate pop‐up uses. At least seven provide annual Christmas lighting. Cleanliness At least 20 BIDs were involved in cleanliness. Usually this includes additional regular street cleaning or deep‐cleaning services, but some BIDs also offer discounted on‐demand cleaning services (e.g. New West End Company, and Ealing Broadway BID). Others carry out cleanliness and anti‐litter campaigns (including HammersmithLondon and Bayswater). Team London Bridge carries out a weekly ‘street audit’ to keep track of cleanliness issues. Related to this, at least 19 BIDs offer additional waste removal or recycling services to businesses. Safety and Security All of London’s BIDs are involved in safety and security in some form. More than half have anti‐ crime partnerships with the participation of local authorities or the police. At least 10 fund additional policing in their areas, and the same number provide private security or wardens – though only two do both. Nearly half operate CCTV cameras, while 10 operate security radio systems – but only five operate both. Pub‐watch and club‐watch schemes are increasingly common, operated in at least seven BIDs. Other initiatives aimed at security include: information and training for businesses (e.g. in Victoria, which provided count‐terrorism training to businesses), special attention to address intimidating urban environments (in Vauxhall One), providing police reports and crime stats to business (e.g. in London Bridge), and business groups or taskforces around licensing and antisocial behaviour.
24
3.16
Area Marketing and Promotion All BIDs are involved in marketing and promotion in some form. 18 out of 30 BIDs have developed promotional material including brochures, websites, magazines and business directories. A smaller number carry out more focused advertising campaigns for their areas. Better Bankside and Team London had been involved in developing a promotional app (the Riverside London App) providing sightseeing information, events listings and augmented reality.
3.17
Branding is implicit throughout all of these activities. Most BIDs have a consistent corporate brand, which itself contributes to a coherent brand for their area. Many BID and business interviewees identified this as a vital function of BIDs. However, a growing number of BIDs have also carried out more intensive area branding or visioning. For example, a core focus of Inmidtown is creating an identity for its area on a par with the City and West End. Fitzrovia is funding focused ‘street positioning’ exercises for Charlotte Street and Tottenham Court Road.
3.18
At least seven BIDs operate information centres or kiosks, or employ roving area ambassadors. As well as being helpful to visitors, these were a good way to consolidate area brands. These are primarily found in the larger, Central London BIDs – for example, Inmidtown’s kiosk and shop, and New West End Company’s ‘Red Cap’ ambassadors – but also in several town centre BIDs.
3.19
Another strategy – adopted by at least five BIDs – is developing discount and loyalty schemes to encourage local buying. This includes Heart of London’s WOW Privilege Card, the ‘Wedge Card’ in Camden Town Unlimited and Waterloo Quarter, and the DealCard in Team London Bridge. Several other BIDs, such as Ealing Broadway, have launched promotional campaigns specifically aimed at local buying.
3.20
Events and Attractions At least 19 BIDs were involved in events and attractions. In some cases this is limited to promoting events or compiling event calendars, but many BIDs are also more actively involved either themselves or with partners in organising these activities. This includes all but one of the City Centre BIDs and eight of the High Street BIDs.
3.21
These activities are diverse. Several BIDs are involved in regular festivals (such as the Kingston Food Festival), while others put on cultural events and performances. Vauxhall One, with its focus on the night‐time economy, organises live music in pubs and bars. e11bidhas organised a series of block parties.
3.22
Six BIDs are involved with markets. Victoria organises seasonal food markets, and e11bidorganises arts and crafts markets. Kingstonfirst has taken on management of Kingston Market and operates it as a commercial venture. Camden Town Unlimited and Ealing Broadway BIDs operate pop‐up shops.
3.23
Several BIDs, including Team London Bridge and Inmidtown, commission street art. HammersmithLondon has developed a permanent roof garden on the first floor of the Hammersmith Lyric Theatre in partnership with the theatre and Groundwork London. The Heart of London Business Alliance (Leicester Square to Piccadilly Circus) organises an annual maze in Trafalgar Square.
3.24
Inmidtown and Paddington both provide free guided walking tours of their areas. Inmidtown offers more than 80 different free walks, including the Museum Mile Walk which encompasses
25 more than twelve museum collections. It will also create customised walks for groups, which has included member businesses for corporate events, and local schoolchildren as part of businesses’ CSR responsibilities.
3.25
Business Support and Services More than two thirds of BIDs also offer support or services to business. At least five have organised networking and meet‐up events. A growing number of BIDs provide environmental advice to businesses, or support their CSR programs. Other BIDs provide information and advice to business. For example, LOVE Wimbledon offers a ‘One Stop Shop’ service and Camden Town Unlimited operates Collective, a shared office space for start‐ups supported by events and training. Over and above such programs, BIDs support businesses in a variety of ways day‐to‐day as part of their bespoke service.
3.26
At least 19 BIDs offer free waste removal and recycling services to businesses. Inmidtown runs a furniture and equipment exchange service (ourgreendistrict.com), while Paddington BID and Angel AIM offer services which distribute unwanted items to charities. At least 12 BIDs offer other discounts or bulk purchasing arrangements – including for insurance, energy and utilities, and office supplies and services. Inmidtown offers a diverse range of discounts including on taxis and couriers, archiving, energy and lighting, and drinking water. Better Bankside offers discounted venue hire.
3.27
At least five BIDs offer business intelligence data (in addition to basic newsletter and marketing material). Several, including the New West End Company and Successful Sutton, have installed footfall cameras. Victoria BID produces an ‘Economic Health Check’. The New West End Company and the two ‘Heart of London’ BIDs have partnered to provide the West End Destination Tracker which provides a range of destination data (from footfall to crime) via business briefings and a dedicated website for business.
3.28
3.29
Community Engagement and CSR Community and CSR‐related activities are becoming increasingly common, with at least nine BIDs involved in some way. This includes seven City Centre BIDs but also at least two High Street BIDs (Angel AIM and Ealing Broadway BID). At least five, including Angel AIM and four City Centre BIDs, support their members’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities by providing links to local charities, schools or other groups and helping organise volunteering opportunities for employees. Others fund or support community projects themselves. The New West End Company has established a Community Kitty which will support local fundraising efforts with donations from stores in the area. At least seven BIDs are involved in local employment or training. Several offer free local recruitment services to business, including Victoria BID’s Employment Charter, Team London Bridge’s EmploySE1, and the New West End Company’s Recruit West End. Several others, including Ealing Broadway BID and the Fitzrovia Partnership, are involved in apprenticeship provision. Several BIDs offer work experience or training programmes for young people, including the New West End Company, and Vauxhall One, which offers training in the night‐time economy. Camden Town Unlimited has set up a Fellowship Programme working with 150 graduates over the next two years with the aim of supporting 40 to set up a business.
26
3.30
Sustainability and Environment This was also an increasingly common area for BIDs. As mentioned above, recycling and waste removal services are widespread, found in at least 19 BIDs. Three also collect unused furniture and equipment for exchange with other businesses or to distribute to charities. Beyond this, at least seven BIDs offer environmental advice or consultancy to businesses, such as energy audits. Camden Town offers and Energy One Stop Shop for businesses.
3.31
Inmidtown’s Urban Bee Project provides bee‐hives for building roofs the area and encourages employees to become involved in bee‐keeping. Victoria BID has an extensive sustainability programme, running a Green Business Network, trialling green roofs, rain gardens and living walls, and funding research, as well as running its own bee keeping program.
3.32
Five BIDs – Angel AIM, Better Bankside, Camden Town Unlimited, the Heart of London Business Alliance BIDs, Team London Bridge and Waterloo Quarter – are partners in the Smart Green Business Project. This is an ERDF‐funded project managed by the Cross River Partnership which helps SMEs in Central London improve their environmental performance.
3.33
Area Vision and Regeneration BIDs were involved to varying degrees in delivering strategy and vision for their areas. Just under half of BIDs had been involved in, or were planning, larger public realm and regeneration projects. In some cases this was primarily through leading visioning and urban design projects. In others, BIDs worked to leverage external funding for projects – from GLA and Transport for London Funding, or from investors and property owners – as well as making financial contributions themselves.
3.34
The City Centre BIDs are most widely involved in this area. For example, Better Bankside and Team London Bridge have oriented their agendas around transforming their neighbourhoods with Better Bankside defining its ambition as creating the ‘best neighbourhood in the world’. However, a number of High Street and Town Centre BIDs are also extensively involved in strategic planning. Camden Town Unlimited has led preparation of a £10m long‐term public realm plan called Camden Town First. The plan has informed major public realm upgrades at Camden High Street North, and raised a further £3.35m toward further works in 2011‐12. e11bid and Kingstonfirst have been heavily involved in projects funded by the Outer London Fund, Transport for London and other sources.
3.35
Several BIDs, including Victoria BID and Better Bankside, are contributing to neighbourhood plans or looking to take on neighbourhood planning functions. Others, including Team London Bridge, have engaged extensively with landlords as a means to creating area visions.
Expanding the service model 3.36
Commercialising Services Some BIDs had been involved in commercialising services. A number of BIDs provided specific services to non‐member businesses including business radio services, discount cards, and recycling. Other sources of income mentioned in interviews included revenue from events and festivals and well as income from delivering visitor information services.
27
3.37
3.38
Delivering Council Services In the survey nine out of 22 respondents26 said they delivered council services in some form – including five City Centre BIDs, three High Street and Town Centre BIDs and one Industrial Estate BIDs. Of these, all delivered more than one type of service, suggesting a division between BIDs which are receptive to this approach and those that are not. The most common service area was in public realm enhancement or regeneration (in seven out of nine BIDs), followed by crime prevention (in six BIDs), cleaning (in five BIDs), marketing and events (in five BIDs), and less commonly cycling facilities, environmental functions, and the management or operation of council assets. Kingstonfirst was a notable example, taking on responsibility for local tourism promotion and owning and operating local markets for the council.
Summary and conclusions 3.39
There are currently 32 BIDs in London, and between them contain 32,253 firms, or 7.6% of total London firms, and have 8.2% of total London business turnover. Thirteen of these BIDs are in High Streets and Town Centres, and there are also eleven City Centre BIDs’; and six on industrial estates.
3.40
The majority of the existing BIDs are involved in activities typical of the BID model, including cleanliness, safety and security, and area improvement. Some are also engaged with their communities and in regeneration. Some BIDs are now providing a range of other services, including council services.
26
When discussing the survey results the number of total respondents varies between questions, as not all respondents completed every question.
28
4 London’s BIDs Today: Structure and Operation Funding 4.1
Levy Rates and Contributions Levy rates varied from less than 1% to over 2%. This translates into an average contribution per business of around £3000 per annum, but this again ranged significantly from around £130 per annum in one small industrial estate BID to over £11,000 per annum in one City Centre BID. Income of current BIDs Industrial Estate
High Street and Town Centre
City Centre
0
1,000,000 Levy income
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
Non‐levy income
4.2
4.3
4.4
Among High Street and Town Centre BIDs the average levy contribution per business of around was £1000, ranging from around £230 per annum in a small outer London high street BID to more than £2000 in a major town centre BID with a complex business plan. Among City Centre BIDs the average contribution was significantly higher at £3200 per annum – reflecting the larger size of these businesses – and ranged from £1200 to over £11,000. Levy Income The average levy income across all of London’s BIDs is £638,000 per annum, but levy income varies enormously between BIDs. The smallest (the recently formed New Addington BID) is expected to raise around £20,000 in levies in its first year, while the largest (Inmidtown) raises over £2.3m. Among High Street and Town Centre BIDs the average levy income is £390,000 per annum, with four raising more than £500,000 per annum, and the largest (Kingstonfirst) raising more than £900,000. Among City Centre BIDs the average is £1,060,000 per annum, and ranges from around £500,000 to £2.3m. Among Industrial Estates the average levy income is £120,000 per annum, ranging from around £40,000 per annum to over £250,000 per annum; four Industrial Estate BIDs raise under £80,000 per annum.
29
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
Additional Income At least 26 of 30 BIDs also attracted additional income outside the BID levy. Among these, additional income was worth on average 28% of levy income. Thirteen BIDs raise equivalent of less than 20%, while six BIDs raise more than 50%. In 2010‐11, the most successful – Angel AIM BID – raised over £414,000 in additional income on top of its levy income of £292,000, a rate of over 140%. Among High Street and Town Centre BIDs all but one attracted additional funding, 38% of levy income on average. Five leveraged more than this. Angel AIM, Camden Town Unlimited and Kingstonfirst stood out, each attracting more than £400,000 of additional funding. Among City Centre BIDs all attracted some additional funding, 20% of levy income on average. Only five attracted more than 20%. The New West End Company attracted the most – more than £1.3m, or 39% of its levy income – but the most successful in terms of income ratio was Fitzrovia BID, which leveraged more than 50% in additional income or around £500,000 pounds. Three of the Industrial Estate BIDs leveraged no additional income at all, but three leveraged more than £10,000, and Argall Avenue BIDs leveraged more than £30,000 or 75% of its levy income. Total Income In terms of total income, then, four BIDs – including three Industrial Estate BIDs and one outer London town centre BID – had a total income of less than £100,000 per annum. More than half of BIDs (seventeen) had a total income of more than £500,000 per annum. Eight BIDs – six of which were City Centre BIDs – had a total income of more than £1m per annum. Among City Centre BIDs, average total income was £1.4m, but ranged from around £550,000 in Paddington to more than £3.4m in the New West End Company. Six earned £1m or more. Among High Street and Town Centre BIDs, average total income was £564,000 and ranged from around £20,000 in New Addington and around £100,000 in E11 BID in Leytonstone, to £1.2m in Camden Town Unlimited and more than £1.4m in Kingstonfirst. Six earned £500,000 or more. Further Leveraged Income The figures above disguise the fact that many BIDs leverage further income on a project‐specific basis which goes directly to projects administered by other organisations and not through the BID’s books. For example, Camden Town Unlimited aims to leverage £4 direct project funding for every £1 it spends directly on capital projects. Better Bankside commissions the spending of Section 106 Funding in the area. Sources of Additional Income In the survey, among the nineteen respondent BIDs who had secured additional income, by far the most widespread source was the Council (in thirteen BIDs), followed by voluntary contributions from businesses (in nine BIDs); property owners (in eight BIDs); and sponsorship (in eight BIDs). A similar distribution of sources was found among the three sub‐categories of London BIDs, and among out‐of‐London BIDs. Beyond these common sources, a handful of BIDs had also attracted funding from the police and transport authorities. Two City Centre BIDs and one inner London town centre BID had attracted some national government funding. A small number of BIDs attracted additional income by commercialising services. Inmidtown also attracted income from its university partners. Team London Bridge attracted some European Union funding.
30 4.12
In terms of diversification, of the London BIDs which attracted additional income, four attracted only local authority contributions, including two industrial estate BIDs and two small outer London high street BIDs. All the rest attracted income from at least two different sources, while at least six – all larger High Street or Town Centre and City Centre BIDs – attracted income from four or more sources.
Source of additional BID income (number of BIDs leveraging income from sources) Local government Voluntary contributions from business Property owners Sponsorship Police Other National government Transport authorities 0
4.13
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Local Authority Contributions Councils were a significant source of funding for BIDs. In the survey, of the twenty BIDs which attracted non‐levy income, thirteen received some income from the local authority. At least nine councils contributed financially to BIDs, while at least three contributed more than £100,000 per annum to their BIDs. However, five boroughs made no financial contribution at all.
4.14
Slightly over half of councils who responded to the survey expected their financial contribution to their BIDs to remain roughly the same over the next few years. Three expected their contributions to decrease – but these were all boroughs with mature and successful BIDs attracting substantial non‐levy income from other sources. None of the respondent boroughs with mature BIDs expected their contributions to increase substantially.
4.15
Councils frequently provide financial support to BIDs in their early years of establishment. Eleven out of fifteen respondent boroughs had provided financial support to the set‐up of some or all of their BIDs. All but one of these boroughs had provided a straightforward grant, while one had provided both a grant and a loan. In some cases grants were simply to meet the cost of the ballot, but in others there was more extensive pump‐priming including legal costs of developing the operating agreements, and appointing the BID team. A common approach was diverting Section 106 monies into grants. In some cases local authorities had provided financial support to some but not all of their BIDs where business funding alone was sufficient.
4.16
Aside from direct financial support, many councils had provided in‐kind support. Five had seconded staff to assist with developing some of their BIDs, while in other cases while there was no formal secondment council staff had spent significant time assisting with the BID development. Ten councils had provided access to professional advice – from within the council or elsewhere – for BID development. Two had helped run BID demonstration projects. All fifteen
31 respondent councils had a seat on BID development steering groups, while thirteen had BID steering groups regularly reporting to council during BID formation. 4.17
4.18
However, council support has tended to decline as BIDs mature. This had been a challenge for some BIDs which have had to reduce their reliance on local authority income. Looking ahead, some BIDs expressed concern about the pressure on local authority finances in the future. Many BIDs emphasised that there was a need to diversify away from reliance on local authority funding, or GLA Group sources such as OLF, and establish new independent funding streams. Optimism about Future Income BIDs had mixed expectations about how their additional income would change in the future. Of 19 survey respondents, eight expected that additional income would decrease in the next two years, including both High Street and City Centre BIDs with substantial additional income. Four – including one High Street and three City Centre BIDs – saw income staying the same. Five saw their income increasing somewhat. Two – both of which were ambitious City Centre BIDs – saw their additional income increasing more than 100%. City Centre BIDs were slightly more optimistic than High Street BIDs.
Capacity and Governance 4.19
4.20
Staff Of 24 survey respondents, four – including E11 BID in Leytonstone, and three Industrial Estate BIDs – employed only one management or administrative staff member. Ten BIDs – including most of the High Street and Town Centre BIDs – employed two or three staff. A further nine BIDs – including most of the City Centre BIDs – employed four to five administrative staff. However the largest, Better Bankside, employed more than ten administrative staff. Some of the larger BIDs – such as Camden Town Unlimited – deliberately kept their core management staff small and brought in others on a project‐specific basis. Of 23 respondents, ten employed no additional staff outside the administrative team (e.g. in service delivery). Five employed between one and five additional staff. This included some of the smaller Industrial Estate and High Street BIDs, but also larger High Street and City Centre BIDs such as Camden Town Unlimited and Vauxhall ONE. Seven BIDs employed more than five additional staff, with at least four of these employing more than 10 – including large High Street BIDs such as Kingstonfirst, and City Centre BIDs such as Better Bankside.
32
BID Staff Capacity 0
Management/ administrative staff
Additional staff
2
4
6
8
10
1 2‐3 4‐5 5‐10 10+ 0 1‐3 3‐5 6‐9 10‐15
4.21
4.22
Board Size BID boards had, on average, twelve members, but ranged in size from five (in a small Industrial Estate BID) to nearly 30 (in the Heart of London Business Alliance). In general, larger City Centre BIDs had larger boards. However, this varied: Team London Bridge had only eight board members, and the New West End Company (with the largest income of any London BID) had eleven; while Bexleyheath BID had 27 members. Board Composition Boards had, on average, nine members from local businesses. Among 22 survey respondents, larger companies (250+ employers) sat on the boards of all but four BIDs. Large companies were slightly better represented on the average BID board than small companies. However, among City Centre BIDs there were on average nearly twice as many larger companies as SMEs. Among High Street and Town Centre BIDs this was the other way around, with twice as many SMEs as larger companies.
4.23
Boards also had, on average, three non‐business members, and every board had at least one; these most commonly included local authorities, the third sector, residents or community groups, and the police. Fewer City Centre BIDs had local authority board members – four out of ten who completed the survey, compared to eight out of nine High Street BIDs. Conversely, more City Centre BIDs had third sector or community representatives – seven out of ten respondents, compared to four out of nine High Street BIDs. Industrial Estate BID board were typically restricted to member businesses and the local authority, but two BIDs also had representatives from the police.
4.24
At least four BIDs also had property‐owner board members including Better Bankside, the New West End Company, Team London Bridge and Kingstonfirst. Team London Bridge had a member from Sellar Property Group, the developer responsible for the Shard and London Bridge Quarter. Inmidtown had a board member from Transport for London. Kingstonfirst had two board members from the education sector and one from the Chamber of Commerce. e11bid had a board member from Job Centre Plus.
33 Composition of BID boards (number of BIDs with at least one sector representative) Local authority Independent Police Professional services businesses Other businesses Leisure businesses Night‐time businesses National retailers Residents / community group Financial sector businesses Third sector Property owners Others 0
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
5
10
15
20
25
Board Functions Among 23 survey respondents, thirteen boards met quarterly, with the rest meeting more often. One board, for Croydon BID, meets once a month. Among 18 respondents, nine had boards with a purely terms of reference/description role. These were primarily in the City Centre BIDs which have more detailed business plans and larger administrative capacity. Three had boards which were more closely involved, setting and monitoring performance targets for the BID manager – including one large City Centre BID. Six had boards which took responsibility for specific projects or areas of the BID’s work. These included a number of Industrial Estate BIDs as well as two significant High Street and Town Centre BIDs. Executive‐ and sub‐groups Among 23 respondents, seven boards had an executive group – including five City Centre BIDs, two High Street and Town Centre BIDs and one large Industrial Estate BID. The role of the executive group included setting performance targets (in Vauxhall One); preparing and approving in principle key financial decisions (in the Waterloo Quarter Business Alliance); and making decisions between meetings (in Camden Town Unlimited). Also among 23 respondents, sixteen boards had sub‐groups. Unsurprisingly these were most commonly found in the City Centre BIDs, but they also existed in a number of High Street and Town Centre BIDs (including Camden Town Unlimited, Bexleyheath BID, Successful Sutton and LOVE Wimbledon), and larger Industrial Estate BIDs (including London Riverside). A number of these had informal sub‐groups or ad‐hoc groups which formed on a topic‐specific basis, while others – for example in the Heart of London BIDs or Vauxhall One – were more permanent and dedicated to each program theme. Accountability Of 23 respondents, twelve had a formal complaints procedure for levy payers. This included two of the Industrial Estate BIDs, and six out of nine High Street BIDs, but (surprisingly) only four out of ten City Centre BIDs. In contrast, six out of ten out‐of‐London BIDs had no formal complaints
34 procedure. Of 23 respondents, all but one BID (a large High Street BID) had its accounts externally audited.
4.29
4.30
Relationship with the GLA family BIDs engage with the GLA through the biannual round tables involving BIDs and senior GLA officials. The GLA is also working in partnership with BIDs across the capital on a wide range of different activities, including tourism and place promotion, cultural initiatives and environmental enhancement measures, as well as transport improvements, cycling initiatives and streetscape/public realm projects. Many BIDs have made use of GLA funding sources for public realm and regeneration programs – including the Mayor’s Regeneration Fund, Outer London Fund, and Transport for London Funding. BIDs also engage closely with Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police, including as part of transport initiatives and security partnerships.
Measuring Performance and Impact Number of BIDs employing performance and impact measures Crime rates Surveys of business opinions Surveys to business Environmental indicators Additional BID revenue attracted Pedestrian / visitor counts Customer perceptions Additional revenue streams Inward investment attracted Job creation Business turnover Other 0
2
4
6
Used to demonstrate performance
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Used in case for renewal
4.31
4.32
Performance Data A crucial part of demonstrating value is the use of performance data. This may include specific indicators on corporate performance or the performance of individual service areas; as well as broader measures of impact. The former may include savings to business, amount of waste recycled, participation in BID programs or satisfaction with BID services. The latter includes such indicators as crime rates, surveys of business opinions, footfall and turnover figures, visitor perception surveys, amount of inward investment attracted and economic performance. As the recession has bitten, BIDs are gathering data to demonstrate performance in increasingly sophisticated ways. The survey showed that more basic indicators – such as crime rates, savings
35 and business indicators – are still the most widespread; but that a more diverse range of indicators are starting to be employed especially by larger and more strategically‐oriented BIDs (including more data on area perceptions and footfall). These are becoming more finely differentiated – for example, Better Bankside has a range of data sources including hotel occupancy, perception, and travel‐to‐work patterns. 4.33
4.34
A strong majority of respondents (20 out of 23) used performance measures and data which were reported on a regular basis. Disseminating Performance Data Performance data is used in a variety of ways in day‐to‐day communication with members and other stakeholders, as well as in marketing and published material. Some BIDs offered data as a service to members. For example, the Fitzrovia Partnership issues business briefings, and the New West End Company provides real‐time data reports on footfall, sales, crime and other statistics.
4.35
The regular dissemination of performance data varied between BIDs. Of 22 survey respondents, 15 published measures on a regular timetable. Eight published annually, four published quarterly and only three – including Vauxhall one and the New West End Company – published monthly. Four collected performance measures but did not regularly publish them. Four – including two prominent High Street BIDs – collected no performance measures at all.
4.36
In terms of the metrics used by BIDs to demonstrate performance, 19 out of 23 respondents had used data on crime rates in the past year. Also widespread were surveys of business opinions; savings to business; and environmental indicators (such as amount of waste recycled). Inward investment figures and demand‐focused measures such as customer perception surveys and visitor counts were slightly less common – employed by just under half of all respondents. The least common indicators were economic statistics such as business turnover or job creation – each used by only five out of 22 BIDs.
4.37
This contrasts strongly with the out‐of‐London survey results, in which visitor counts were the most common performance measure (in nine out of ten BIDs), crime rates were less common (in six out of ten BIDs), and environmental indicators and inward investment figures were not widespread at all (used in only one BID). This reflects some of the differences in focus between London and out‐of‐London BIDs.
4.38
Use of Data in renewing BID mandates In making the case in the run‐up to a renewal ballot, BIDs employed a wide range of indicators to demonstrate their performance. The most widely‐used indicator was crime rates, among 16 out of 20 respondents (80%). Also common were business surveys (in fourteen BIDs), customer or visitor perception surveys (in twelve BIDs), additional BID revenue streams (twelve BIDs), and savings to business (thirteen BIDs). Far less common were broader economic indicators such as business turnover or job creation (each used by only two BIDs). BIDs had also used more impressionistic indicators such as before and after pictures of improvements, or illustrations of environmental enhancements. Unsurprisingly, larger City Centre BIDs were more likely to use a wider variety of indicators than High Street or Town Centre BIDs.
36
Relationship with Stakeholders 4.39
Local Authorities BIDs cannot operate without the close involvement of the local authority covering the location in which they are established. Local authorities are normally the initiator or funder of set‐up costs for BIDs, and continue to be closely involved with their operation. Councils are represented on the overwhelming majority of BID Boards, and one BID had five Councillors representing the authority. In a majority of cases boroughs also had BIDs make regular reports to the council or hold regular meetings with council officers. Conversely, five included BID representatives on council committees.
4.40
Eleven out of fourteen respondent councils also offered in‐kind support. Ten of these councils allocated staff time to support the BID, although only one council formally seconded staff. This included ensuring follow‐up on queries or actions following feedback from businesses or requests from the BID manager. It also included professional guidance or advice, and in a smaller number of cases access to professional support outside the council. Joint working on services or projects between BIDs and councils was widespread, with twelve councils involved in joint working on a service or product with their BIDs.
4.41
Local authorities are extensively involved in the set‐up of BIDs – sometimes playing a significant role in the success of BID proposals, and in some cases actively driving the initiation of a BID proposal from the start. The attitude of local authorities is therefore a key determinant on BID development. This is reflected in the fact that while seventeen London boroughs have no BIDs at all, nearly half of the boroughs with BIDs have more than one, and several have more than four. However, there were also some notable cases where councils had been minimally involved and BID formation had been primarily business‐led: for example in Fitzrovia. At least fourteen of London’s BIDs emerged from either Town Centre Management or business organisations already active in the area.
4.42
4.43
4.44
Non‐Levy Paying Businesses Levy payment thresholds mean that not all businesses will pay the BID levy. Of 19 respondents which had a lower threshold for levy payment, 17 engaged with non‐levy payers in some way. 13 said they engaged ‘somewhat’ while four said they engaged ‘extensively’. Only two – both significant High Street BIDs – engaged ‘not at all’. Among these BIDs, 14 included non‐member businesses in regular communications. 11 BIDs invited businesses to workshops and forums – such as Better Bankside’s Business Club. Only five consulted them in BID proposals. Others said they made sure to engage with non‐member businesses on a daily basis on local issues. Property‐Owners Engagement with property‐owners is far less widespread, and BIDs noted that both identifying and engaging with property‐owners can be a challenge. This is potentially easier in BIDs with a smaller number of large landlords, such as in City Centre BIDs. Some BIDs have engaged with landlords on a strategic basis as part of area visioning activity. Others have engaged on more micro‐level issues, for example a High Street BID which works with landlords to reduce litter and anti‐social behaviour outside betting shops. One suggested approach is developing agreements with landlords to inform new tenants about the BID. An
37 overarching theme is there is a need for a published vision or strategy aimed at landlords which can involve them in the BID’s agenda for the area.
Approval and Re‐balloting Turnout and approval rates in most recent BID ballots 100 80 60 40 20 0 City Centre % Turnout
High Street and Town Centre % in favour by number
Industrial Estate
UK Average
% in favour by rateable value (RV)
4.45
Approval Rates So far, every BID proposed in London has successfully passed ballot compared to 84% of BID proposals across the UK – although one, Park Royal, was successfully balloted, it is not operating, and some BIDs have required more than one ballot to be successful.
4.46
Among BIDs currently in their first term, the average approval rate in their initial ballot was 71% by rateable value (RV), and 67% by number. This was slightly ahead of the average approval rate across the UK (63% by RV and 60% by number).27 Approval rates ranged from 59% by RV (in a City Centre BID) to 93% by RV (in an Industrial Estate BID). Out of sixteen BIDs, six had very high approval rates (over 80% by RV).
4.47
First‐time approval rates were significantly higher in City Centre BIDs (on average 76% by number and 85% by RV), than in High Street and Town Centre BIDs (64% by number and 65% by RV). This may reflect the greater resources available to larger City Centre BID proposals and the greater ease of engaging with their business base. Meanwhile, Industrial Estate BIDs all enjoyed approval rates of over 80% by both numbers and RV. Notable City Centre BIDs included Vauxhall One (91% by RV) and Team London Bridge (89% by RV).
4.48
4.49
Re‐Approval Rates The average approval rating in re‐ballots among London’s second‐term BIDs was 70% by RV and 79% by number. This was ahead of the national second‐term average by number (65%), but slightly below the average by RV (76%). Average approval rates improved significantly in the second term by number, but not by RV. Approval rates by RV ranged from 60% to well over 90%. Whereas, in first ballots, City Centre BIDs achieved significantly higher approval rates, this gap closed in re‐balloting – showing that High Street BIDs can successfully establish themselves 27
Data sourced from the Nationwide BID Survey 2012 with permission from British BIDs as the copyright owner.
38 among business communities in the second term. Among the seven High Street BIDs that are now in their second term, the average re‐approval rate was 66% by number and 68% by RV; among City Centre BIDs it was 69% by number and 88% by RV.
4.50
High Street BIDs notable for high approval rates include Camden Town unlimited (91% by RV), and Heart of London Business Alliance (93% by RV); while notable City Centre BIDs include the Heart of London Business Alliance (93% by RV) and Waterloo Quarter Business Alliance (91% by RV). Meanwhile, the two second‐term Industrial Estate BIDs both enjoyed high approval rates. The Hainault Business Park BID enjoyed 95% approval by business numbers and 98% by RV.
4.51
In the most recent ballots (for approval or re‐approval), turnout ranged from 34% (in Bayswater BID) to 91% (in Garratt Business Park BID), while nine BIDs had turnouts of 50% or more. The average turnout in initial BID ballots was 42% ‐ the same as the average nationally. The average turnout for re‐balloting was only slightly higher, at 45% ‐ slightly below the average nationally.28 Turnout was generally higher in larger City Centre and Industrial Estate BIDs where businesses are more extensively engaged with the BID. Two City Centre BIDs had turnouts of over 70%. Among the High Street BIDs, Camden Town Unlimited had the highest turnout, at 66%.
Summary and Conclusions 4.52
The average levy income across London’s BIDs is £638,000 per annum, but levy income varies enormously from around £20,000 for the New Addington BID to £2.3 million for Inmidtown. Nearly all the BIDs raise additional income from other sources. At least nine councils contribute financially to BIDs, while at least three contribute more than £100,000 per annum.
4.53
The size of the executive team varies from one (part‐time) member of staff, up to more than ten. In terms of BID Boards, larger businesses tend to be well‐represented. In addition to businesses most BIDs also include other stakeholders such as the local authority, Police and local residents. Some BID Boards include property owners. Many BIDs also have thematic sub‐groups involving a wider range of agencies and individuals in overseeing delivery of their business plans.
4.54
All BIDs engage with the GLA family to deliver their priorities. Many have made use of GLA funding sources for public realm and regeneration programs – including the Mayor’s Regeneration Fund, Outer London Fund, and Transport for London Funding. BIDs also engage closely with Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police, including as part of transport initiatives and security partnerships.
4.55
Eleven out of fourteen respondent councils also offered in‐kind support. Ten of these councils allocated staff time to support the BID, although only one council formally seconded staff. Local authorities are extensively involved in the set‐up of BIDs – sometimes playing a significant role in the success of BID proposals, and in some cases actively driving the initiation of a BID proposal from the start.
4.56
So far, every BID proposed in London has successfully passed ballot compared to 84% of BID proposals across the UK. 28
Data sourced from the Nationwide BID Survey 2012 with permission from British BIDs as the copyright owner.
39
5 London’s BIDs today ‐ Economic Impact 5.1
As noted in Chapter 2, quantifying the impact of BIDs is inherently difficult. Data on many of the indicators which we would expect BIDs to contribute to are either not available publically (e.g. footfall), or are simply not recorded or collected (e.g. improved quality of the local environment).
5.2
Even where indicators are available, the broader impact of BIDs on perceptions and economic performance of areas is difficult to disentangle from other factors. Moreover, many of the impacts of BIDs are intangible: even an extensive list of indicators can inadvertently ignore much of the good work that BIDs do in terms of local advocacy, improving relationships between councils and businesses and raising the profile of a local place.
5.3
Nevertheless, it is clear that BIDs have had significant positive impacts on their areas across London. To take some – by no means exclusive – examples from our ten BID case studies, it is clear that BIDs such as Inmidtown, Better Bankside and Camden Town Unlimited have crafted coherent visions and identities which are transforming their areas; e11bid, despite its small capacity, has been instrumental in boosting the amenity and appearance of its high street; Kingstonfirst has had a long‐term impact on Kingston’s development as a thriving Outer London Town Centre. There are abundant examples of successes in delivering services or regeneration projects. The high approval rates in re‐ballots, and ability of some BIDs to leverage large amounts of additional income, speak for themselves.
5.4
Moreover, as discussed in the previous chapter, BIDs are using data to measure and demonstrate their impact in increasingly sophisticated ways. As BIDs collect more data on performance, there is scope for the GLA or others to collect and use more of this data in order to understand how BIDs are collectively performing, what this means for the London economy as a whole, and strengthen the overall case for BIDs. However, this is beyond the scope of this research.
5.5
Below, we consider three sources of evidence on BID Impact from our research:
Feedback from businesses;
Feedback from local authorities; and
Economic performance of BID areas.
Feedback from Businesses 5.6
The businesses we interviewed were widely satisfied with the service and value for money they received from their BIDs. Several strong messages emerged from these conversations. An overarching message was that some of the ‘intangible’ benefits of BIDs were as important to businesses as more tangible or measurable ones.
5.7
Businesses valued the range of services that BIDs provided, but did not expect the cost savings from services to offset the BID levy. Many, such as recycling or bulk purchasing agreements, were valued for the convenience they represented, though they may also generate cost savings. Others were valued for their broader effects on areas.
40 5.8
In particular, businesses emphasised that the representative role of BIDs, and the ability to have a direct relationship with their BID, was more important than any specific service. They particularly value their BID's intermediary role with the council, seeing BIDs as more business‐ minded and accessible than councils, while having direct relationships with council personnel which allow them to get things done. They valued being able to use BIDs to raise issues or provide input into council decisions more effectively than they can on their own. “The BID people are always easy to get hold of, compared to the council. They are like a broker, the council is a supplier. Brokers always say yes: we haven’t yet taken them up on anything they haven’t delivered.” Business Owner, City Centre BID
5.9
In other cases, BIDs were able to: provide information and advice, customise services to meet business needs, broker links between businesses and other organisations, or simply take feedback from business into account. In either case, having a responsive organisation on the other side of a phone was especially important, and many businesses noted they had been able to develop direct, productive relationships with BID personnel. “The BID does a lot for us, but more than anything else they are responsive – we are able to develop a relationship with them, and they are happy to help us when we need it”. Business Owner, Town Centre BID
5.10
More broadly, businesses recognised the broader effect of BIDs on their areas, whether this was anecdotal or based on clear evidence. Businesses in a City Centre BID valued the way the BID had been able to develop a clear identity and strategic direction for the area. Several described how the many small things done by the BID added up to create a sense that the area was ‘going places’: “There has been a dramatic change in how the area looks and feels over the last few years ... It has more of a buzz, and many people want to set up a business here. The BID is responsible for a lot of that”.Business Owner, City Centre BID
5.11
In some cases, businesses were able to cite performance statistics as a clear demonstration of the success of the BID especially where these were clearly related to communicated BID objectives. For example, in one High Street BID, the BID was widely credited with cutting crime.
5.12
However, in other cases businesses felt that many of the impacts of the BID were difficult to measure, in part because they were hard to separate from other changes occurring in the area. “It’s hard to gauge footfall, spending, even individually. There are many things planned for the area in terms of regeneration, Crossrail, and the BID is clearly playing a role in maximising the benefit of these – but we can’t necessarily point to numbers on this”.Business Owner, Town Centre BID
Feedback from Local Authorities 5.13
Asked what benefits BIDs bring to their boroughs, all 13 boroughs responding to the survey named improved public realm and a cleaner environment, all but one named ‘a better relationship between the Council and businesses’, and 11 out of 13 named ‘crime reduction’.
41 5.14
Smaller numbers named increased footfall (seven out of 13), or retail sales (five out of 13). Others named opportunities to develop business support, and support for employer engagement and local employment. All but one said their views were at least partly based on evidence.
5.15
All boroughs responding to the survey said BIDs were important as a source of economic growth in the borough. Five said this claim was mainly based on evidence, and four said this was based on some evidence; but a further four said this was not evidence‐based.
5.16
Councils which had made financial or resource investments into their BIDs were generally very satisfied with these; nine out of twelve reported ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ value, and two reported ‘average’ value. Most could demonstrate some evidence for this, but two councils reported that this was not based on evidence. Out of fourteen respondent councils in the survey, six felt that engagement with the BID could be improved ‘a lot’ or ‘somewhat’, while four felt that the current engagement was satisfactory.
Economic Performance of BID Areas 5.17
Quantifying the economic impact of BIDs is especially difficult, both because the effects of BIDs are difficult to disentangle from other factors in economic performance; and because BID geographies are not usually covered by conventional public statistics.
5.18
Here, we have made use of business statistics from the Trends Central Resource29 to understand how local economies with BIDs have changed over the period 2005 to 2012 in relation to comparable areas which do not have a BID. Due to the issues surrounding attribution, the relationships uncovered by the analysis should be considered correlative not causative. In other words, the analysis suggests in some cases that BIDs may have had an impact on the outcomes in a given economy, but it cannot show that a BID caused these outcomes.
5.19
Each London BID has been examined over the period 2005 to 2012. This timescale has been used both for simplicity’s sake, and because comparing individual BIDs over different timescales (for example, two years before BID setup and two years afterward) would lead to impacts being skewed due to the recession. Since a number of London BIDs have only recently been established, this means that in some cases the changes observed will mostly be due to external factors rather than the BIDs themselves.
5.20
In order to provide a comparison to understand how BID areas have performed, we have looked at the performance of London as a whole over the same period. We have also constructed a number of ‘comparator areas’ for which we have produced statistics over the same time period in order to understand how areas without BIDs have performed. The comparator areas are locations which could potentially be BIDs, but currently are not – i.e. other town centres and industrial parks. We have produced comparators for a range of different sized areas to provide a comparison for the full range of London BIDs.
29
Note: further information on the statistics used can be found in the Appendix.
42 5.21
It is important to recognise that the difficulty of constructing reasonable comparators means that whilst the comparator areas are well matched against the BID areas in some respects, they are less so in other ways. Therefore the BID areas’ relative success in comparison to the comparator areas should not be considered an over‐riding measure of success but instead needs to also be considered in light of London’s overall performance. Detailed statistical tables for all measures can be found in the Data Annex. London BID Areas (Total)
2005
2012
Change
% Change
Number of Firms30
33,408
32,253
-1,155
-3.6%
Employment
488,534
475,533
-13,001
-2.7%
£69,355,773
£72,149,860
£2,794,088
4.0%
£142
£152
£10
7.1%
2005
2012
Change
% Change
464,372
419,473
-44,899
-9.7%
Employment
4,686,144
4,223,251
-462,893
-9.9%
Turnover (£ millions)
£874,766.1
£881,321.1
£6,555.0
0.7%
£187
£209
£22
11.8%
2005
2012
Change
% Change
Number of Firms
9,119
9,005
‐24
‐0.3%
105,664
81,746
‐23,918
‐22.6%
£17,486,505
£13,568,105
‐£3,918,400
‐22.4%
£165
£166
£1
0.3%
Turnover (£ millions) Turnover per employee (£000s) London (Total) Number of Firms
Turnover per employee (£000s) Comparator Areas (Total)
Employment Turnover (£ millions) Turnover per employee (£000s)
5.22
Number of Firms Between 2005 and 2012, the number of businesses operating in BID areas fell by 3.6%. In comparison, the number of businesses operating across London as a whole fell by significantly more at 9.7%. The number of businesses in comparator areas saw far less decline, only 0.3%. However, the overall performance of the comparator areas is somewhat distorted due to the fact that the two largest comparator areas saw modest increases in the numbers of businesses, which compensated for decreases in the other eight comparator areas. Therefore the 30
Note: the number of firms excludes those firms who have zero employees and who are not VAT registered. Therefore it is a lower number than the full count of businesses provided in BIS (2012) Business Population Estimates.
43 performance of BID areas in terms of business numbers appears to have compared very positively with many other parts of London. 5.23
However, it is important to note that there was a considerable difference between the different BID areas. The Hainault Business Park saw the number of firms increase by 37%, whilst Kimpton Industrial Park saw the number of firms decline by 23% over the same period.
5.24
Interestingly, areas in which BIDs have been established for longer have seen a greater decline in the number of firms over the period in question. BIDs established in 2007 or earlier saw a 7.7% decline in the number of firms between 2005 and 2012. In comparison, BIDs established in 2008 or later saw a 1.7% decline in the number of firms over the same period. However, this largely reflects the fact that Inmidtown and Team London Bridge (established in 2010 and 2011 respectively) both saw significant growth in numbers of firms.
5.25
5.26
Employment In 2012 BID areas in London employed 475,533 people, or 11.3% of total London employment. Between 2005 and 2012, the number of people employed in BID areas fell by 2.7%, which was a significantly lower decline than that experienced across London as a whole (9.9%) and in the comparator areas (22.6%). Again, different BIDs saw very different changes in the number of jobs in their BID areas. Team London Bridge saw a 49% increase in jobs in the BID area. Somewhat surprisingly, given the increase in the number of businesses, Hainault Business Park saw the number of jobs in the area decrease by 30%, albeit from a relatively low base. In terms of employment changes, there was relatively little difference between older BID areas and newer BID areas, with both seeing declines of between 2.6% and 2.7% on average. Turnover Turnover per employee in the BID areas was lower than for either the London average or the comparator areas examined but increased at a greater rate. There were, of course, large differences between the turnover per employee in different BIDs. In Argall BID, turnover per employee was £354,000, whilst in Ealing BID, turnover per employee was just £52,000 in 2012.
5.27
BID areas saw a 4% increase in turnover generated by business between 2005 and 2012. This was significantly more than London as a whole, which only saw turnover increase by 0.7%. Moreover, turnover actually decreased in the non‐BID comparator areas by 22.4%. There were significant differences in the change in turnover between BIDs. Businesses in Team London Bridge saw a 74% increase in turnover generated, whilst businesses in Croydon BID saw turnover decline by 32%. There was also a slight difference in performance between older and younger BIDs, with BIDs established prior to 2008 seeing turnover generated by businesses grow by 4.6%, whilst BIDs established after 2008 seeing turnover generated by businesses grow by 3.7%.
5.28
Turnover per employee grew by 7.1% across BID areas as a whole between 2005 and 2012. This was lower than the London average growth in turnover per employee (11.8%) but the latter mainly reflected the significant decline in employment across London. In the comparator areas, turnover per employee was essentially stagnant over the period, at just 0.3%.
5.29
Small versus Large BIDs One further point of interest is the difference in the performance of larger rather than smaller BID areas. In general, there is some evidence that larger BID areas (those with more initial businesses) appear to have performed better than smaller BID areas over the period in question.
44 However, it also appears that middle‐sized BID areas (those with 600 to 899 firms in 2005) have performed the best, creating more jobs and seeing more growth in the turnover generated by businesses, despite seeing a 6.7% decrease in the number of firms over the same period. Given the small number of BID areas in each size band, it is more likely this is a comment on the performance of these areas rather than a comment on the efficacy of BIDs of different sizes. % Change in the number of businesses (2005 – 2012)
% Change in the number of employees (2005 – 2012)
% Change in the business turnover (2005 – 2012)
Fewer than 200 firms
‐3.7%
‐21.5%
‐12.1%
200 to 599 firms
‐11.2%
‐7.8%
‐2.3%
600 to 899 firms
‐6.7%
4.7%
9.4%
900 to 1,749 firms
‐4.8%
2.4%
5.8%
1,750 or more firms
‐1.9%
‐8.2%
‐0.5%
All firms
‐3.6%
‐2.7%
4.0%
Size of BID by number of businesses (2005)
Summary and conclusions 5.30
It is clear BIDs have had significant positive impacts on their areas across London. Some have crafted coherent visions and identities which are transforming their areas, many have successfully implemented area improvements, are now in delivering services and regeneration projects. All those going for re‐ballots have been successful.
5.31
The businesses we interviewed were widely satisfied with the service and value for money they received from their BIDs. Many local authorities consider BIDs to have a positive impact on economic growth. We examined a number of economic indicators in BID areas in comparison with London as a whole, and some hypothetical comparator areas, and identified a relatively strong economic performance in the BID areas.
5.32
It is important to reiterate that these statistics do not conclusively prove that BIDs influence economic growth. The apparent successes of BIDs compared to the rest of London may simply suggest that successful areas become BIDs, rather than BIDs being an important contributor to economic success. The different start dates for different BIDs means that in some cases the BID has had very little time to impact the functioning of the local economy.
5.33
Equally these results do not speak for the performance of BIDs as organisations. The hugely varying outcomes in local economies depends on many different things, not least the broader economic context and the impact this has had on businesses. Some BID areas will have been more badly affected by the recession and slow recovery than others due to the nature of businesses in their area.
5.34
In general we could conclude that the results demonstrate that BID areas performed better than London as a whole between 2005 and 2012. Whilst not decisive proof of BIDs’ effectiveness in supporting local economies, this can be taken as another important piece of tentative evidence that BIDs can support improved economic performance.
45
6 Establishing New BIDs 6.1
BIDs are being developed in a number of areas across London, including Clapham, Brixton, Twickenham, Northbank and New Addington. Northbank will seek approval later in 2013. Ealing Broadway BID is considering expansion.
6.2
In addition, boroughs identified possible locations for at least another seventeen BIDs, including several cross‐border BIDs. A study by GVA Grimley31 identified a number of potential locations around Central London, included Bethnal Green; parts of Spitalfields and Shoreditch; Whitechapel; Cheapside; South of Kings Cross; Charing Cross; parts of Soho; and Knightsbridge – as well as several other areas which have been covered by proposed BIDs since the report was published. There are many more potential locations in high streets and town centres in Outer London. If all or most of the potential locations listed above were to become BIDs, the Mayor’s manifesto commitment to create 50 BIDs by 2016 could be achieved, and it is likely that by the date of the next Mayoral election there may be in excess of 40 BIDs in London.
6.3
Of the 16 councils with BIDs which responded to the survey, eight were either supporting new BIDs or considering doing so. Another two, Islington and Camden, were tentatively considering promoting BIDs in certain areas. Of the ten non‐BID councils which answered the survey, four were considering supporting BIDs, and a further two boroughs were unsure but did not rule it out.
6.4
Despite the increasing pressure on Council resources, 14 local authorities were planning to provide financial support for new BID development. Of those authorities not proposing to provide support for future BID development, three boroughs cited a lack of interest from business, two cited a lack of council resources and one said BIDs were not a strategic priority.
Support amongst businesses for new BIDs 6.5
The success of existing BID areas in winning their initial ballot may suggest that businesses are relatively open to the idea of establishing BIDs. However, it is important to recognise that at a time when the economy remains relatively depressed that the additional cost of a BID levy may be seen as too much of a burden if businesses cannot be convinced of the benefits of having a BID in their area.
6.6
Another concern raised by the recent London Assembly consultation on empty shops is ‘that some businesses are concerned that the money they pay to a BID through the business rate levy may be used to replace funding for existing public services, so it is not truly additional funding. If this is the case it could limit their willingness to agree to proposals for a new BID.32’ Care will need to be taken to address these concerns amongst businesses when seeking to establish new BIDs.
31 32
GVA Grimley (2010), Central London’s Business Improvement Districts London Assembly (2013) Open for Business: Empty Shops on London’s High Streets – March 2013
46
What makes a BID successful? 6.7
The ultimate test of a BID is whether it has made sufficient evident improvement in the trading environment of an area that levy‐payers are prepared to vote to continue to fund it into the future.
6.8
Therefore to be successful a BID must be run efficiently and effectively and have a clear vision and action plan to guide its activity. It also needs to establish and maintain good relationships with the local authority, the GLA, and Police and any other local agencies on whom it depends in order to carry out its key functions.
6.9
It must establish good communication structures with local businesses which can be maintained over time. The quality of a BID’s business database is therefore key.
6.10
Crucially, a BID must provide the services that businesses are willing to pay for. The one key benefit of BIDs with respect to other models is that they have, by virtue of their set up, the flexibility to find different solutions in different areas depending on local business need. They may have a community focus, or a crime and environment focus, or develop into particular activities purely in response to local priorities. They differ in this respect from many other structures which tend to identify funding for particular functions from specific sources.
Conclusions ‐ lessons for new BIDs 6.11
Key lessons from previous BIDs that will be helpful for new BIDs are:
Setting up a BID requires significant resource both in time and personnel on the ground in the area.
The process will need to start by developing a good, accurate database of businesses, identifying voters and starting to engage them.
The engagement of these businesses over a period in discussions about the area and the potential for a BID to improve the area is fundamental to success, and takes time, energy and knowledge.
The process requires people on the ground with the time, energy and knowledge to engage businesses over a substantial period of time.
The process is likely to take at least a year, unless there is a good solid base of engagement and partnership support already established.
As with any organisation, good leadership is very important, (and BIDs rely on businesses stepping forward to take this role); and a clear business plan with objectives and targets will increase the effectiveness of the organisation.
47
7 The Future of BIDs: New Service Models 7.1
We know from the analysis in the preceding chapters of this report that BID activities are becoming increasingly diverse. More BIDs are exploring community‐ and sustainability‐focused activities. Some BIDs are exploring new service models such as commercialising their services, or taking over and running local assets, while others have sought to take on services from councils. At the same time, there is increasing policy emphasis on local business‐led structures, at local as well as at a wider scale with the establishment of Local Enterprise Partnerships across the country.
New Activities 7.2
Out of 22 respondents, 16 saw ‘delivering new activities or services within existing BID programmes’ as a very important or essential objective over the next two years, while six saw providing ‘new types of activities and services’ as very important or essential.
7.3
Crime and public safety remained a key concern, with 13 out of 22 respondents citing it as one of their top three priorities for service development over the next two years. Business support and services was a growing area of focus, with nine out of 22 citing it as a key priority. Some BIDs were becoming more involved in diversifying their business base. Camden Town Unlimited for example described plans to extend support for start‐ups through its hub space, Collective.
7.4
Eleven out of 21 respondents said they were receptive to increasing their involvement in community engagement and CSR. This included five who were already involved in this area as well as six who were not. While six were City Centre BIDs, this also included four High Street and Town Centre BIDs. Twelve out of 21 said they would be receptive to increasing involvement in environmental sustainability. This included six City Centre BIDs as well as five High Street and Town Centre BIDs.
7.5
However, BIDs had mixed opinions on whether CSR and sustainability were desirable service areas. There was a clear split between those which were interested in these service areas and those which weren’t. Out of 15 BIDs which were receptive to either one, nine were receptive to both, while eight were receptive to neither.
7.6
7.7
Commercialising Services Some BIDs had been involved in commercialising services. A number of BIDs provided specific services to non‐member businesses including business radio services, discount cards, and recycling. Other sources of income mentioned in interviews included revenue from events and festivals and well as income from delivering visitor information services. Thirteen out of 22 respondents said they would be receptive to taking on commercial ventures over the next two years. Some BIDs were considering commercialising some of their services, either within the BID area, or in adjoining areas. Others were exploring taking on management of local assets and properties. These represented sources of additional income for the BID.
48 7.8
7.9
In recognition of the increasing difficulties experienced in many High Streets, in 2011 the Prime Minister commissioned the independent Portas Review33, to recommend steps to support high streets and town centres. This made a number of recommendations including ‘Town Teams’ as new high street management teams with a strong focus on vision and strategy; funding the development of neighbourhood planning for high streets; and encouraging innovation in high street management through a series of ‘Portas Pilots’. Delivering Council Services In the survey nine out of 22 respondents34 said they delivered council services in some form, including five City Centre BIDs, three High Street and Town Centre BIDs and one Industrial Estate BIDs. Of these, all delivered more than one type of service, suggesting a division between BIDs which are receptive to this approach and those that are not.
7.10
The most common service area was in public realm enhancement or regeneration (in seven out of nine BIDs), followed by crime prevention (in six BIDs), cleaning (in five BIDs), marketing and events (in five BIDs), and less commonly cycling facilities, environmental functions, and the management or operation of council assets. Kingstonfirst was a notable example, taking on responsibility for local tourism promotion and owning and operating local markets for the council.
7.11
Ten out of 20 respondents said they would be receptive to taking on local authority services. Eight said they had approached or been approached by the council to deliver further services in the future; this was primarily the case among City Centre BIDs, and those which delivered some Council services already. This included a similarly wide range of service types. One BID had been approached by its council to deliver library services.
7.12
However, there was widespread caution about whether taking on council services was a desirable step. Only two respondents felt that delivering council services would be ‘strongly desirable’; eleven saw it as ‘neither desirable nor undesirable’, and four saw it as ‘undesirable’. Many BIDs felt that their role should be providing additional value rather than replacing additional services. Others noted the risk of being perceived as a subset of the council. There was also some caution among the Boroughs about handing over service delivery to an organisation which may not exist after five years.
Other sector‐specific BIDs 7.13
As BIDs develop, there is increasing diversity in their organisation and objectives. Some BIDs may become more closely focused on particular objectives or sectors, such as Vauxhall ONE in London which focuses on the night‐time economy. There is potential for developing new sector‐ specific BIDs or tourism‐based BIDs (TBIDs). Government and other groups have advocated
33
Portas, Mary (2011), Independent review into the future of our high streets When discussing the survey results the number of total respondents varies between questions, as not all respondents completed every question.
34
49 introducing TBIDs in the United Kingdom; the Scottish Government is currently offering grants to support establishing TBIDs in Scotland.35 7.14
Particularly in the United States, leisure and tourism‐based BIDs (TBIDs) have become increasingly common. These organisations, for instance California’s Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District, provide services such as place and sector promotion, training and skills, and business funding.
7.15
There are no current tourism BIDs in London. There is a new tourism related BID in Bournemouth, which has just been established, and as such it is too early to draw conclusions about its success. The legislation already provides for sector‐specific BIDs, but not for cross‐ boundary BIDs. However, amendment to legislation which seeks to accommodate cross‐ boundary BIDs is now out to consultation.
7.16
However, there are a number of potential challenges for the development of sector‐specific BIDs. Firstly it can be difficult to define with clarity which businesses are within a particular sector, or which benefit from improvements achieved through the BID. For example, in the tourism context, retailers would be likely to benefit from increased numbers of visitors. There are examples, such as the Birmingham Broad Street BID, which is a night‐time economy BID, where different streets pay different levies, depending on how much the businesses benefit. However, this clearly adds to the complexity, and the difficulty of developing a clear programme to put to businesses for approval.
7.17
In addition, BIDs require a critical mass of businesses, and restricting membership to particular categories of businesses reduces the proportion of businesses in the area who are potential levy payers and requires a wider geographical coverage. Beyond a certain scale, engaging the businesses will be extremely difficult to do, unless they are already well organised.
7.18
It should be noted, however, that some BIDs are in effect sector BIDs by virtue of their geographical coverage. An industrial estate, for example, may have a particular type of businesses within the area.
7.19
There is significant potential to strengthen cross‐BID collaboration. BIDs within cities and regions could establish new partnerships in order to play a stronger role in setting the agenda for economic development. Nearby or neighbouring BIDs could collaborate on shared services. At least two local authorities in London have tentatively explored alternative models such as ‘satellite BIDs’ or BID clusters. This would enable BID income to be redistributed between locations, allow BID services to be provided in locations where a stand‐alone BID would not be financially viable. It could also make multiple BIDs easier for local authorities to manage. There are some significant questions around this approach, and no current precedent exists in the UK, however it may be a way to extend the reach of BIDs.
35
English Core Cities DMO Group and Visit England (2011), Introducing Tourism Business Improvement Districts in England
50
Super BIDs and Neighbourhood Planning 7.20
The idea of ‘Super‐BIDs’ is that they would have additional powers and an enhanced strategic focus. These were not clearly defined under the Portas review, but the idea is that they would develop a more “dynamic strategic vision”, helping to shape thriving high streets of the future. The review looked at how BIDs could be enabled to exercise the new community right to buy assets and run services provided by the Localism Act. It also proposed that BIDs should have the same rights as local authorities to use Compulsory Purchase Orders and enter and upgrade strategic properties to bring empty properties back into use. However, this would require legal changes, which Government has indicated are unlikely.
7.21
Super‐BIDs would be able to lead neighbourhood planning exercises to develop a vision for their high streets. Finally, landlords should be engaged in the process through reforming BID legislation to allow property‐owners to participate in BID decision‐making. In response, the Government has committed to exploring property‐based and cross‐boundary BIDs in the UK.
7.22
These proposals raise a number of complex issues for local authorities as well as BIDs themselves. Extending the role of BIDs is in many ways in line with a localist approach, and the Localism Act 2011 gives BIDs the opportunity to take on responsibilities such as contributing to the formation of neighbourhood plans.
7.23
The issues raised relate to democratic accountability, and the role of BIDs in relation to local Councils, and from the point of view of the BID Board, an issue about widening out the role and vision of the organisation, while the core funding is provided only by the business community. There is therefore a serious question about the extent to which BIDs are really able to become strategic bodies, addressing objectives for an area, rather than acting principally in the interests of their levy payers. A critical relationship in the context of neighbourhood plans, is with residential communities, who may have aims for the area which conflict with those of the business community (say in the case of developing the night time economy).
7.24
However, some BIDs are already seeking to strengthen their external voice and influence and play a more important role in lobbying on borough and London‐level decisions. Several, including Victoria BID and Better Bankside, are involved in neighbourhood planning. A number of BIDs are seeking to engage more closely with landlords and developers to deliver area visions.
7.25
As BIDs extend their reach, it will become even more important to address the concerns that BIDs can be un‐democratic and un‐accountable, and ensure they engage with communities as well as businesses.
7.26
Most BIDs seek to engage with residents (where relevant) to some degree, but the type of engagement varies. At least 13 BIDs have community or resident groups represented on their BID Board. Other BIDs engaged with residents more informally. A smaller number of BIDs are involved with resident groups or neighbourhood forums. For example, The New West End Company holds a Community Forum three times a year involving councillors, community leaders, the police and the religious community; Better Bankside is extensively involved with the Bankside Resident’s Forum.
7.27
The Portas Review recommendation to adjust BID legislation to make it easier for BIDs to raise funds would allow the BID levy to be at least partly paid by property‐owners. This is already the
51 case in Scotland, and Government is assessing this option as part of the response to the Portas Review. There are potential complications with this, however, as some BIDs have developed good relationships with property owners, through engaging them in BID discussions and activities, and managed to secure their co‐operation and contributions in the absence of legislation. There is a potential danger of putting some of this good will at risk by legislating to secure compliance. 7.28
A further objective for the future might be broader economic and employment growth, to help revitalise town centres, and restructure the area of a town centre to accommodate changing patterns of use, and alternative forms of community interaction incorporating new community centres or other resources or facilities where shops used to be. These are critical questions for the future development of town centres, and for that reason the role that BIDs can play is extremely important.
Conclusions ‐ drivers of change 7.29
In the coming years BIDs will increase both in number and in importance across London. As the drive to secure the future of town centres leads to a broader range of solutions, the role that BIDs can play in their areas and across a wider geographical area will be important. As the political and economic landscape changes, BIDs will continue to evolve.
7.30
The factors that are driving change are likely to include:
Continuing pressures on local centres because of slow recovery from recession, and continuing the trend towards large shopping centres and online retail.
Reduced local authority budgets and scope to fund the establishment of BIDs.
Increased emphasis on stimulating wider economic growth or restructuring town centres.
Reduced public sector budgets for local area regeneration partnerships mean BIDs become increasingly significant local agencies.
Increased interest from private as well as public sector institutions in promoting local employment and other CSR functions.
Local authority exploration of new models of service delivery through commissioning out delivery.
7.31
There is potential for BIDs to take on new services and areas of activity. BIDs across the country are innovating in service delivery from local discount cards to web applications, to real‐time area data, to new forms of business support. In particular, more BIDs may become involved in community engagement and corporate social responsibility (CSR); and in environmental sustainability. Some BIDs have been entering into contractual agreements with local authorities to take over and run council services. BIDs are also commercialising some of their services (from waste collection to advice and consultancy), and generating new sources of income. This could include providing services outside their BID areas.
7.32
There is a case for BIDs, as they mature, to take on a more strategic focus and become more closely involved in visioning, regeneration and long‐term area improvements, but to do this, they may need to clarify their relationship with residential communities and agree their developing role with their local Council.
52
8 Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1
There are already some 32 BIDs established. Further BIDs are already in development or in consideration for development work, and it is likely that over the next two years the Mayor’s objective of 50 BIDs in London will be achieved. But no two BIDs are the same. The term covers very different organisations, with their scope determined by radically different levels of income, sectoral diversity of members and geographic size, and level of strategic vision. Despite this, BIDs share a common focus on their members and many common challenges which means that they often have shared interests.
8.2
For town centres and high streets to survive and flourish it is essential that they offer a broad mix of businesses, services and facilities. However, this creates a challenge in ensuring the location presents an attractive offer for customers, employees and inward investors. This report has demonstrated that on a number of counts, BIDs are successful in helping town centres to do this. We have also seen that in industrial areas, BIDs can play a vital role in investing in necessary infrastructure and improving the functioning of business parks.
8.3
BIDs are not replicable in every business location within London. There needs to be a critical mass of business support and a sufficiently large business base to generate the revenue required to service the organisation. This can be quite small, as has now been demonstrated with the establishment of the New Addington BID. By definition though, BIDs seek to improve the competitive advantage of their location in relation to other areas, and have tended to be established in areas which already have a relative advantage, and the critical mass to enable it to succeed.
8.4
The implication of this is that in an economic environment in which many smaller retail and employment areas are suffering, BIDs are unlikely to be the solution. However, larger BIDs could in theory, extend their services to neighbouring centres at a marginal additional cost, and it would be very helpful to identify BIDs willing to explore this model.
8.5
BIDs are only one among a range of types of local business partnership. There are alternative town centre partnership models, which may be quicker and easier to establish, with lower upfront costs. However, unless these are supported by some alternative funding streams, these may require up‐front and continuing public sector support.
8.6
BIDs require good relationships with their local authorities and with the GLA family in order to be effective. The consensus among BIDs is that this could be improved.
8.7
There is also a question over the extent to which BIDs will become strategic, visionary agencies working to transform local areas. Questions around their relationship with residents and local authorities will need to be considered, in addition to possible new funding arrangements and service delivery models.
53
Recommendations 8.8
Our recommended actions are grouped under four principal themes, namely: 1. Supporting the development of new BIDs and other partnership structures. 2. Supporting the growth and development of existing BIDs. 3. Improving engagement and supporting shared learning. 4. Work with local authorities and BIDs to explore new BID models and extentions. Each of these themes and our recommended actions are described below.
Supporting the development of new BIDs and other partnership structures 8.9
The Mayor has made clear his desire to see more BIDs across London. A number of new BIDs are proposed and in development, but the increased financial pressures facing Councils, means that there are less resources available to support start‐up costs into the future. In that context, there are a number of things that the GLA could do to support those areas considering establishing a BID. Specifically:
Develop a formal GLA Group policy position in support of BIDs, highlighting the Mayor’s support and acknowledging their role in supporting the growth and regeneration of London.
Develop a standard baseline agreement between the GLA Group and BIDs which specifies the type and nature of support that the GLA will provide to BIDs.
Update and make available the set of BID tools, templates and resources previously contained in the LDA funded London BIDs programme.
Influence the development of the proposed national BID Loan fund and ensuring that the government’s proposals reflect key issues and concerns related to London.
Depending on the shape of national proposals, consider the feasibility of establishing a separate London loan fund to operate alongside the national fund for supporting the establishment of new BIDs.
Establish a Mayoral grant which would support the start‐up costs of establishing new BIDs, working with those areas that have indicated that they are considering establishing a new BIDs and inviting proposals from partnerships of Local Authorities and businesses to meet some of the set up costs.
Supporting the growth and development of existing BIDs 8.10
While the aspiration to see more BIDs established across London is welcomed by stakeholders, there is also a need to consider how the GLA and Mayor, working with Local Authorities and London Councils, might best support the growth and development of existing BIDs, particularly given the positive contribution that BIDs appear to be making to their local economies. In this regard the GLA should:
Ensure that all BIDs are fully aware of all future GLA Group funding opportunities and that wherever possible, BIDs are considered as eligible applicants or partners for relevant funds. Where this is not possible,
54 consideration should be given to involving BIDs in the decision making process, using their local knowledge and experience to inform funding allocations.
Consider how to stimulate the market for BID to BID peer support, encouraging experienced BID managers to commercialise their knowledge and support the establishment of new BIDs and development of existing BIDs.
Organise and host round tables, chaired by senior GLA officials on specific topics such as property owners contributions, or links between BIDs and national retailers.
Host an annual round table with CLG and other government departments, facilitating the engagement of London BIDs in national policy debates.
Improving engagement and supporting shared learning 8.11
London’s BIDs are increasingly becoming key players in supporting the growth and development of local economies. While there are already positive experiences across London of BIDs working with parts of the GLA Group, more could be done to make this engagement more systematic. In addition, the GLA could also play a key role in supporting London BIDs share learning and development in a co‐ordinated fashion. The GLA should therefore:
Establish regular communication channels between the GLA Group and BIDs, covering policy development and funding opportunities.
Nominate a key officer in each of the Mayoral Agencies to act as a first point of contact for BIDs across London.
Support identification and dissemination of best practice – including support for evaluation of specific BID activities.
Encourage BIDs to develop service performance benchmarks that allow them to learn from each other and compare performance.
Work with local authorities and BIDs to support new models 8.12
The recession and the restructuring of the retail sector has changed local economies and many town centres in a way that has not yet clearly been understood or reflected in policy or strategic planning. However, the Portas review raised a number of challenges for BIDs and other town centre partnerships. Over the coming years BIDs will need to consider how they can work with residents and with their local authorities on wider strategic agendas, and to support smaller neighbouring retail or employment areas. The GLA is ideally placed to support thinking and the development of new models of operation, and should therefore:
Identify a small number of areas in which to work with BIDs and corresponding local authorities to explore extended BID models, including testing out new relationships with local authorities and residents, and new funding and service delivery models, and possible new functions and powers.
55
Appendix: Data About the Data The data used in the economic analysis within this report is provided by Trends Central Resource (TCR), the central database of Trends Business Research (TBR). TCR is one of the most extensive bodies of information on UK enterprise. It contains information on around 7 million firms and organisations that have existed in the UK over the last 30 years. It allows us to add value to economic statistics by generating greater detail than that which is provided through government statistics. Built ‘from the bottom up’, it contains individual records for organisations covering a wide range of variables including address, employment and performance, business activity, ownership structures, executives, legal status, start‐up year and a host of other descriptors. Unlike official statistics which tend to miss out certain sections of the economy, TCR represents the whole UK employer population. Data are unit based and also represent firms below VAT and PAYE thresholds. Comparisons with official statistics over the last 15 years indicates that coverage of employing organisations is now close to 100%, with coverage of non‐employing firms (sole traders working alone and companies/partnerships including only directors/partners) at around 30% or more. We use this extensive sample to estimate total populations for these very small firms. Using TCR has enabled us to identify firms within BID areas, which would otherwise be impossible using official sources of data, due to the fact that BIDs cover geographies that do not match the standard geographies over which statistics are normally collected. It has also enabled us to create comparator areas to understand how areas of London without BIDs have performed. To create the comparator areas for our analysis we divided BIDs into two different types of groupings, one based on the number of businesses and one based on the level of extant deprivation. We then found appropriate medium super output area (MSOA) level comparators in London for each subdivision of these groupings. These were then compared with the appropriate group of LEPs to understand how LEPs had performed relative to other areas.
56
London’s BIDs
Angel Aim BID
Current Term 2011‐2016
Previous Term 2007‐2011
Category High Street / Town Centre Industrial Estate
Approximate annual BID levy income (most recent figures or proposed), £ 290,000
Approximate non‐levy income (most recent figures or proposed), £ 410,000
Last Ballot Turnout (%)
% in favour by Number
% in favour by Rateable Value
47
81
86
40,000
30,000
‐
86
93
High Street / Town Centre City Centre
550,000
280,000
34
59
60
650,000
120,000
52
86
82
270,000
43,000
38
64
‐
690,000
500,000
66
81
91
1,000,000
60,000
41
71
79
67,000
30,000
43
95
91
330,000
30,000
40
68
60
2012‐17
High Street / Town Centre High Street / Town Centre High Street / Town Centre High Street / Town Centre High Street / Town Centre City Centre
960,000
500,000
41
77
86
Garratt Business Park BID
2008‐2013
Industrial Estate
260,000
10,000
91
90
90
Hainault Business Park BID
2011‐2016
2006‐2011
Industrial Estate
80,000
10,000
58
95
98
HammersmithLondon
2011‐2016
2006‐2011
510,000
140,000
47
69
77
Heart of London Business Alliance: Leicester Square to Piccadilly Circus
2012‐2017
2007‐2012
High Street / Town Centre City Centre
780,000
180,000
74.5
92
93
Argall Avenue BID
Bayswater BID
2010‐2014
Better Bankside
2010‐2015
Bexleyheath BID
2011‐2016
Camden Town Unlimited
2011‐2016
2006‐2011
Croydon BID
2011‐2016
2007‐2011
E11 BID
2013‐18?
2008‐2012
Ealing Broadway BID
2010‐2005
2006‐2010
Fitzrovia
2005‐2010
57
Heart of London Business Alliance: Piccadilly and St James
2012‐2017
City Centre
770,000
120,000
48
71
81.5
Ilford BID
2009‐2014
300,000
70,000
39
64
70
Inmidtown
2010‐2015
High Street / Town Centre City Centre
2,300,000
250,000
46
83
90
Kimpton Industrial Estate BID
2009‐2014
Industrial Estate
50,000
63
86
87
Kingstonfirst
2009‐2014
2005‐2009
990,000
540,000
42
70
74
London Riverside Industrial BID
2012‐2017
2007‐12
High Street / Town Centre Industrial Estate
250,000
46
72
85
2005‐2009
High Street / Town Centre High Street / Town Centre City Centre
430,000
30,000
‐
‐
‐
20,000
‐
‐
‐
‐
3,400,000
1,300,000
43
63
73
City Centre
540,000
20,000
‐
97
99
310,000
25,000
38
67
820,000
250,000
52
77
89
LOVE Wimbledon New Addington
2012‐2017
New West End Company
2008‐2013
Paddington BID
2010‐2013
Successful Sutton
2012‐2017
Team London Bridge
2011‐2016
High Street / Town Centre City Centre
Vauxhall One
2012‐2017
City Centre
740,000
150,0 00
42
83
91
Victoria
2010‐2015
City Centre
1,280,000
120,000
55
67
73
Waterloo Quarter Business Alliance
2011‐2016
City Centre
510,000
60,000
74
‐
91
Willow Lane Industrial Estate
2009‐2014
Industrial Estate
50,000
‐
42
93
95
2005‐2010
2006‐2011
58
Economic Impact Analysis: Definition of Groupings for BID Comparator Areas BID Angel AIM Argall BID Baker Street Quarter Bayswater BID Better Bankside Bexleyheath BID Camden Town Unlimited BID Croydon BID e11bid Ealing BID Garratt Business Park Hainault Business Park HammersmithLondon Heart of London Ilford BID inmidtown Kimpton Industrial Park Kingston First London Riverside BID Love Wimbledon New Addington New West End Company Paddington BID Piccadilly and St James's Successful Sutton Team London Bridge The Fitzrovia Partnership Vauxhall One Victoria BID Waterloo Quarter BID Willow Lane
Size Group 600 to 899 Less than 200 1,750 or more 200 to 599 900 to 1,749 200 to 599 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more 200 to 599 200 to 599 Less than 200 Less than 200 900 to 1,749 600 to 899 600 to 899 1,750 or more Less than 200 900 to 1,749 200 to 599 600 to 899 Less than 200 1,750 or more 600 to 899 1,750 or more 600 to 899 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 600 to 899 1,750 or more 200 to 599 Less than 200
IMD Group 25 to 30 30 or more Less than 15 22 to 25 22 to 25 Less than 15 25 to 30 25 to 30 30 or more 15 to 21 15 to 21 30 or more 30 or more 15 to 21 30 or more 22 to 25 Less than 15 Less than 15 Less than 15 Less than 15 30 or more 22 to 25 22 to 25 15 to 21 22 to 25 15 to 21 15 to 21 30 or more 22 to 25 25 to 30 22 to 25
59 Summary of Firms in BIDs between 2005 and 2012 ‐ Grouped by Business Count and IMD Score Comparator Grouping
Business Count
Deprivation Score (from the IMD)
BID Summary Total Less than 200 200 to 599 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more Less than 15 15 to 21 22 to 25 25 to 30 30 or more Total
Firms 2005
Firms 2012
Change
% Change
CAGR
730 3,280 7,079 8,312 20,956 4,901 9,162 15,287 7,801 3,206 80,714
703 2,912 6,604 7,915 20,550 4,739 8,725 15,043 6,895 3,282 77,368
‐27 ‐368 ‐475 ‐397 ‐406 ‐162 ‐437 ‐244 ‐906 76 ‐3,346
‐4% ‐11% ‐7% ‐5% ‐2% ‐3% ‐5% ‐2% ‐12% 2% ‐4%
‐0.5% ‐1.7% ‐1.0% ‐0.7% ‐0.3% ‐0.5% ‐0.7% ‐0.2% ‐1.7% 0.3% ‐0.6%
Firms in Non‐BID Comparator Areas between 2005 and 2012
Non BIDs
BID Summary Total
Firms 2005
Firms 2012
Change
% Change
CAGR
E02000821 E02000585 E02000365 E02000305 E02000575 E02000931 E02000429 E02000328 E02000867 E02000117 Total
Less than 200 200 to 599 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more Less than 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 35 35 or more Total
213 372 871 845 5255 291 241 204 510 317 9,119
172 293 794 969 5,638 164 156 195 482 232 9,095
‐41 ‐79 ‐77 124 383 ‐127 ‐85 ‐9 ‐28 ‐85 ‐24
‐19% ‐21% ‐9% 15% 7% ‐44% ‐35% ‐4% ‐5% ‐27% 0%
‐3.0% ‐3.4% ‐1.3% 2.0% 1.0% ‐7.9% ‐6.0% ‐0.6% ‐0.8% ‐4.4% 0.0%
60
Summary of Employment in BIDs between 2005 and 2012 ‐ Grouped by Business Count and IMD Score Comparator Grouping
Business Count
Deprivation Score (from the IMD)
BID Summary Total
Employment 2005
Employment 2012
Change
% Change
CAGR
Less than 200 200 to 599 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more Less than 15 15 to 21 22 to 25 25 to 30 30 or more Total
10,508 48,092 103,039 123,552 294,244 69,676 149,311 203,032 112,730 44,686 1,158,870
8,250 44,332 107,867 126,569 270,037 62,234 139,612 206,960 97,500 50,749 1,114,110
‐2,258 ‐3,760 4,828 3,017 ‐24,207 ‐7,442 ‐9,699 3,928 ‐15,230 6,063 ‐44,760
‐21% ‐8% 5% 2% ‐8% ‐11% ‐6% 2% ‐14% 14% ‐4%
‐3.4% ‐1.2% 0.7% 0.3% ‐1.2% ‐1.6% ‐1.0% 0.3% ‐2.1% 1.8% ‐0.6%
Employment in Non‐BID Comparator Areas between 2005 and 2012
Non BIDs
BID Summary Total
Employment 2005
Employment 2012
Change
% Change
CAGR
E02000821 E02000585 E02000365 E02000305 E02000575 E02000931 E02000429 E02000328 E02000867 E02000117 Total
Less than 200 200 to 599 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more Less than 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 35 35 or more Total
1,572 2,702 4,299 2,998 86,604 971 887 802 3,245 1,584 105,664
1,226 2,254 3,833 2,906 66,109 768 683 554 2,255 1,158 81,746
‐346 ‐448 ‐466 ‐92 ‐20,495 ‐203 ‐204 ‐248 ‐990 ‐426 ‐23,918
‐22% ‐17% ‐11% ‐3% ‐24% ‐21% ‐23% ‐31% ‐31% ‐27% ‐23%
‐3.5% ‐2.6% ‐1.6% ‐0.4% ‐3.8% ‐3.3% ‐3.7% ‐5.1% ‐5.1% ‐4.4% ‐3.6%
61
Summary of Turnover in BIDs between 2005 and 2012 ‐ Grouped by Business Count and IMD Score Comparator Grouping
Business Count
Deprivation Score (from the IMD)
BID Summary Total Less than 200 200 to 599 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more Less than 15 15 to 21 22 to 25 25 to 30 30 or more Total
Turnover 2005
Turnover 2012
Change
% Change
CAGR
1,907,617 4,394,840 14,008,194 18,462,165 48,002,671 10,023,007 20,410,444 32,933,827 15,968,939 7,439,271 173,550,975
1,676,474 4,294,742 15,331,086 19,529,278 47,742,928 8,925,426 21,526,803 36,684,342 12,883,726 8,554,212 177,149,018
‐231,142 ‐100,098 1,322,892 1,067,113 ‐259,744 ‐1,097,581 1,116,359 3,750,515 ‐3,085,212 1,114,940 3,598,043
‐12% ‐2% 9% 6% ‐1% ‐11% 5% 11% ‐19% 15% 2%
‐1.8% ‐0.3% 1.3% 0.8% ‐0.1% ‐1.6% 0.8% 1.6% ‐3.0% 2.0% 0.3%
Turnover in Non‐BID Comparator Areas between 2005 and 2012
Non BIDs
BID Summary Total
Turnover 2005
Turnover 2012
Change
% Change
CAGR
E02000821 E02000585 E02000365 E02000305 E02000575 E02000931 E02000429 E02000328 E02000867 E02000117 Total
Less than 200 200 to 599 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more Less than 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 35 35 or more Total
146,892 244,876 466,486 328,610 15,335,506 87,150 97,190 82,806 501,415 195,574 17,486,505
91,419 298,999 392,506 305,233 11,933,007 73,968 54,027 45,444 257,042 116,460 13,568,105
‐55,473 54,122 ‐73,980 ‐23,377 ‐3,402,499 ‐13,182 ‐43,163 ‐37,362 ‐244,374 ‐79,114 ‐3,918,400
‐38% 22% ‐16% ‐7% ‐22% ‐15% ‐44% ‐45% ‐49% ‐40% ‐22%
‐6.6% 2.9% ‐2.4% ‐1.0% ‐3.5% ‐2.3% ‐8.0% ‐8.2% ‐9.1% ‐7.1% ‐3.6%
62 Summary of TPH in BIDs between 2005 and 2012 ‐ Grouped by Business Count and IMD Score Comparator Grouping
Business Count
Deprivation Score (from the IMD)
BID Summary Total Less than 200 200 to 599 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more Less than 15 15 to 21 22 to 25 25 to 30 30 or more Total
TPH 2005
TPH 2012
Change
% Change
CAGR
1,033 726 1,064 967 1,153 843 928 1,204 858 1,110 9,887
1,131 799 1,140 947 1,215 858 1,032 1,303 825 1,215 10,464
98 73 76 ‐20 62 15 104 99 ‐33 105 578
10% 10% 7% ‐2% 5% 2% 11% 8% ‐4% 9% 6%
1.3% 1.4% 1.0% ‐0.3% 0.8% 0.2% 1.5% 1.1% ‐0.6% 1.3% 0.8%
TPH in Non‐BID Comparator Areas between 2005 and 2012
Non BIDs
BID Summary Total
TPH 2005
TPH 2012
Change
% Change
CAGR
E02000821 E02000585 E02000365 E02000305 E02000575 E02000931 E02000429 E02000328 E02000867 E02000117 Total
Less than 200 200 to 599 600 to 899 900 to 1,749 1,750 or more Less than 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 35 35 or more Total
93 91 109 110 177 90 110 103 155 123 1,160
75 133 102 105 181 96 79 82 114 101 1,067
‐19 42 ‐6 ‐5 3 7 ‐30 ‐21 ‐41 ‐23 ‐93
‐20% 46% ‐6% ‐4% 2% 7% ‐28% ‐21% ‐26% ‐19% ‐8%
‐3.2% 5.6% ‐0.8% ‐0.6% 0.3% 1.0% ‐4.5% ‐3.2% ‐4.3% ‐2.9% ‐1.2%
63
1 Naoroji Street, London WC1X 0GB 020 7756 7600 151 West George Street, Glasgow G2 2JJ 01904 567 381 www.sharedintelligence.net
[email protected]
