The Scottish Government

Listen

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS WORKING GROUP PAPER 04/12
MEETING: 5 OCTOBER 2004, NEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE, REGENT ROAD, EDINBURGH

This document is also available in pdf format (164k)

Chair: Andrew Rushworth, Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department

Members:
Euan Dobson, Scottish Enterprise (SEnt)
Geoff Huggins, Scottish Executive Development Department
Ken Jobling, Scottish Executive Development Department
David Lonsdale, Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC)
Jane Morgan, Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department
Fiona Moriarty, Scottish Retail Consortium (SRC)
James Thomson, COSLA
Gordon Reid, Association of Town Centre Management (ATCM)
Alf Strange, The British Property Federation (BPF)
Jane Scott, The Boots Group

Secretariat:
Nikola Plunkett, Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department
Billy McKenzie, Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department
Anna Gilbert, Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department

1. Apologies

1.1 Apologies were received from Bill Anderson (Forum of Private Business in Scotland), Niall Stuart (Federation of Small Businesses), and Gordon Edwards (Director of Finance, Aberdeen City Council).

2. Minutes and matters arising: (Paper 04/06)

2.1 James Thomson informed the Group that COSLA were currently securing additional representatives to bring more local authority expertise in planning and regeneration to the Group. James Thomson agreed to update the Secretariat on this issue in advance of the next meeting.

2.2 The Secretariat had circulated an extract from the 2002 report of the Scottish Parliament's Local Government Committee, specifically in relation to "rural BIDs". It was clear from this that the Committee's intention for "rural BIDs" was that the conventional BID concept be adapted to work in rural areas by involving interests other than the business sector. James Thomson advised that COSLA's Rural Affairs Executive Group had agreed to prepare a paper on "rural BIDs". The group were due to meet on the 28 October and they would prepare a paper to be discussed by the Working Group at the meeting on 6 December.

2.3 Further to the previous recommendation to invite Jacquie Reilly to a future meeting the group were advised that she was happy to attend the Working Group Meeting on 6 December. The Group agreed that Secretariat would contact Jacquie Reilly and confirm the Group would like her to attend the meeting and make a short presentation covering:

• An update on the work of the English Pilots
• Any pitfalls
• Involvement of landlords
• Funding of Pilots (2 approaches)
• An explanation of the role and structure of the BID Pilot steering group

2.4 Gordon Reid confirmed that he would be meeting with Jacqui Reilly on 21 October and he agreed to brief her in advance on the work of the Group, in particular the issue of the involvement of landlords and BID Pathfinders.

2.5 The Secretariat informed the Group that ODPM are now tendering for their review of the involvement of landlords. Once this process is complete the Executive will be provided with a copy of the review specification.

2.6 The Secretariat also advised that they were in discussion with colleagues in the Executive regarding the involvement of landlords and that a paper would be provided for the meeting in December.

2.7 Jane Morgan advised that she is finalising the paper on urban regeneration/renewal and that this would be circulated in advance of the December meeting.

3. Forward Look: (Paper 04/07)

3.1 The group approved and endorsed the work and timescales contained within this paper.

3.2 Andrew Rushworth explained that the Group's report would be submitted by March 2005 to allow the possibility of a primary legislative vehicle being found in the legislative programme for 2005-2006.

4. Pathfinder Projects: (Paper 04/08)

4.1 Euan Dobson introduced his paper and opened up the item for discussion:

4.2 Funding

4.2.1 A key factor discussed was funding of the proposed demonstration projects. The paper envisaged public funding in place of business funding for the demonstration projects. ODPM had provided 160,000 funding over a 2 year period. This was used for the administration work involved in setting up the pilots, however not for the funding of the projects themselves. All pilots in England had had to demonstrate that funding for the projects was in place before they were accepted as pilots, with this funding being provided by the business sector and other funding streams.

4.2.2 It was explained that in addition to the BID Pilots there were 5 initiatives in London which were being funded through 4.6 million of SRB (Single Regeneration Unit) budgets, via the London Development Agency. These pilots/initiatives had been very successful, partly as a result of the increased funding being provided. The point was made that this should be borne in mind when considering funding levels.

4.2.3 Andrew Rushworth advised that there is currently no budget identified by Ministers for BIDs. Other members noted that there was an argument that the demonstration projects would not be true pilots if they did not test the willingness of the business community to pay the BID levy. It was agreed that this issue would be discussed further.

4.3 Assessment of projects

4.3.1 Jane Scott raised the importance of ensuring that BID pathfinders are properly assessed to demonstrate value. She mentioned 13 business support groups for communities throughout Scotland in which she was involved and said that she could report how they are evaluated. The Group agreed that it was important to analyse the business benefit to ensure that a BID project was meeting its objectives. Alf Strange suggested that American BID projects were looked at to determine how their success was measured, and that one possibility would be to develop KPIs for each project. It was agreed that Jane Scott would report back to the Group at the next meeting regarding the evaluation of business support groups.

4.4 Selection Process Requirements

4.4.1 It was agreed by the Group that there should be an open process when considering the location of Pathfinder projects and that formal expressions of interest should be invited. It was noted that a specification paper for this would have to be drawn up if Ministers agreed to proceed with the Pathfinder work.

4.5 "Categories" of Demonstration Project

4.5.1 A general discussion took place on the categories outlined in the paper. The group agreed that the ones covered were mainly sufficient. The point was made than when tendering for Pathfinders it would be useful if one of the categories had been granted public sector funding and one where it did not; this would help to judge the added value brought by public sector funding. In addition it was suggested that the city centre category be split into a "prospering city centre" and a "city centre renewal". It was also recommended that Border towns are considered for the category of town centre renewal as it is often the case that these are left out when developing business projects/policies. This would demonstrate to smaller towns that BIDs can work for them, not just large towns/cities. The following categories were agreed:

• Prospering city centre
• City centre renewal
• Prospering town centre
• Town centre renewal (Border town)
• Business park/science campus

4.6 Management of Pathfinder projects

4.6.1 Euan Dobson emphasised that a key point is who will run the process. In England Jacquie Reilly had been appointed as the steering group's designated co-ordinator. It was agreed that an appointment of this type would be crucial to the success of the projects and that this could be pursued once Ministers had reached conclusions on the Group's report. One possibility was to ask Jacquie Reilly to manage the work in Scotland as the England process will be near completion by that time. All members of the Group also indicated they would be happy to assist in the work of any steering group in Scotland.

4.7 Timescales

4.7.1 Asked if the timescales outlined in Euan's report were realistic the general feeling of the group was that a period of 12 months would be required for a demonstration project to demonstrate success.

4.8 Conclusion

4.8.1 Euan Dobson agreed to amend his paper in light of the comments made. This amended paper would be used in the final report to Ministers.

5. Outline BID Guidance document: (Paper 04/09)

5.1 Andrew Rushworth asked for any comments on this paper. Alf Strange suggested adding a section at the beginning which would outline the benefits of BIDs to all stakeholders. It was agreed that this would be a useful addition.

5.2 Fiona Moriarty asked if Part 5 should be removed as this is being covered by COSLA. Billy McKenzie informed the group that this was an initial section at this stage and that it may be removed once the paper from COSLA had been discussed by the Group. The Group also agreed that it would be important for BID projects to resolve the issue of baseline provision of service by local authorities in advance of the BID vote going ahead. It was agreed that this would be fully covered in the guidance.

5.3 It was agreed that Secretariat would produce a draft document for discussion at the next meeting, reflecting the comments above.

6. Communication/Consultation methods: (Paper 04/10)

6.1 Nikola Plunkett advised the Group that the Scottish Executive website's local taxation section would soon be up and running and that all papers from the group would be placed on it. The Group were happy with this approach to disseminating its work.

6.2 It was agreed by the Group that it would be useful to have some standard text for the Group to use if publicising its work in newsletters. The Secretariat would provide this for a future meeting. The Group agreed that a wider publicity campaign may have to be considered once Ministers had agreed to an approach, possibly involving newspaper adverts. The Group would return to this issue at a later date.

7. Landlord Involvement briefing from BPF: (Paper 04/11)

7.1 The Group agreed that it would be useful to seek an update from Jacqui Reilly regarding her experience on this issue. Andrew Rushworth confirmed that the involvement of landlords will be focussed upon at the next meeting once further advice had been received. Finally Billy McKenzie advised the Group that a paper on this issue commissioned by the Circle initiative in England may be a useful source and it was agreed that Secretariat would seek permission from the Circle initiative to circulate this paper to Members for discussion.

8. AOB

8.1 Jane Scott requested that Andy Godfrey of the Boots Group be copied in to all future communications

8.2 Andrew Rushworth thanked Gordon Reid for hosting the meeting

8.3 The next meeting will take place on 6 December 2004 in Victoria Quay.

Summary of action points for next meeting of Group:

COSLA to update Secretariat on local authority representation in advance of the next meeting

COSLA to pass to Secretariat the paper on "rural BIDs" in advance of the 6 December meeting

Gordon Reid to brief Jacquie Reilly on the work of the Group

Jane Scott to update the Group on the work of business support groups at the next meeting

Euan Dobson to amend his paper in light of comments made and pass to Secretariat in advance of the next meeting

Jane Morgan to circulate urban regeneration/renewal paper in advance of December meeting

Secretariat to contact Jacquie Reilly and confirm the Group would like her to attend the meeting and make a short presentation

Secretariat to provide advice on the involvement of landlords prior to the meeting in December

Secretariat to produce a draft guidance document in advance of the next meeting

Secretariat to draft standard text for publicising the work of the Group

Secretariat to seek permission from the Circle initiative to circulate their paper on landlord involvement to Members for discussion

Scottish Executive
October 2004