We refer to the letter circulated by Mr Nick Osborne last week and wish to point out a number of inaccuracies; a lack of evidence to support views given; and most importantly the lack of a credible alternative to the BID.

Overleaf we address his letter point by point, however more importantly we are compelled to ask Mr Osborne:

1. Given the threat of the internet and mobile technology to traditional shopping patterns, how does he intend to protect Penarth? If the alternative is a revived Chamber, why does he think it will succeed this time when it failed before (twice)?

2. Why has Mr Osborne failed to set out any detail whatsoever around how his alternative will work, how it will be funded, what it will do, where it will do it, how it will be managed etc? Will it flounder for lack of funding, as it does in countless other towns?

3. Given the BID will be controlled by Penarth business people why does he conclude it ‘could do more damage than good’? Don’t Penarth business people know what’s best for Penarth, and wouldn’t it benefit from putting them in charge?

4. Given 19 out of 20 BIDs are proven to work, how can he be so sure a BID will not work in Penarth? (BIDs have re-ballots every five years as a test of performance; from the hundreds of BIDs in operation we know 19 out of 20 are supported again and again by businesses at five yearly re-ballots).

Sadly, research shows that Wales has the highest shop vacancy rates in Britain, in part because of this sort of outdated thinking and a failure to invest in approaches such as BIDs (England and Scotland have nearly 200 compared to just three in Wales). In Canada where BIDs were invented nearly fifty years ago, individual cities such as Toronto and Vancouver have over 70 BIDs each – perhaps this is why they are both in the top five cities in the world to live (see The Economist, Most Liveable Cities Index).

Town centres such as Penarth are too important to leave to chance – they provide the biggest opportunities for independent businesses and are the greatest expression of strong community spirit. However they are seriously threatened by massive changes in shopping habits via internet and mobile technology. There is no credible alternative, we urge you to vote YES for the BID.

Penarth BID

www.penarthbid.co.uk

BID ‘NO’ CAMPAIGN CORRECTIONS

1. ‘Cost to businesses’ – will average just £250pa, ie about £5 a week for independent businesses. There is a prospect that this and even more will be saved by BID organised purchasing schemes of utilities etc. Some BIDs estimate they save businesses 2x as much as they actually put into the BID. Clearly a BID provides a strong platform for ‘economies of scale’.

2. ‘Undemocratic’ – the BID will only invest in projects additional to those provided by the local authority, with existing services protected by legislation (‘base line agreements’ ensure the council maintains the services it was originally intending to provide).

3. Tesco. The in-town store will pay the full 2% just like everyone else. Tesco out of town store will hardly benefit at all from the BID (given its drive-to location), however through judicious decision making by the Steering Group and successful negotiation Tesco have agreed to the BID on a discounted basis, which still makes them the biggest levy payer at a total of approximately £32,000 over five years.

4. Turnout at the ballot will be around 40% not ‘11% of traders dictating to the majority’ (based on the experience of hundreds of other BIDs). Also, regardless of whether or how a business votes, all businesses will be eligible to be elected to the BID Board (this is set out in the BID Proposal document).

5. Running costs? – the BID is only committed to £4,000pa for administration of the levy; the reference to ‘£30,000’ in the letter is highly misleading. ie 95% of the projected £85,000 BID income will be entirely controlled by the newly formed business-led BID Board.

There is no ‘management company’ – the BID Board (controlled by Penarth business on behalf of Penarth businesses) will manage its affairs in any way it chooses to.

6. ‘Enthusiasm’ – nineteen people attended January’s Steering Group meeting, all of whom were in favour of the BID (except for two undecided). This is in addition to nearly fifty attendees at BID consultation meetings and hundreds of 1-2-1 meetings over the past 18 months that have shown businesses to be positive about the need for a BID.

7. BID ‘Failures’? – Swansea BID is a success, voted for by businesses not once but twice in 2006 and 2011 – the last time by nearly 2:1 in favour (63%) ie after they’d tried and tested it for five years. Overall BIDs have an approval rating of 95% of them achieving positive results at re-ballot every five.