THE EVOLUTION OF ’S BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS

Report March 2016 Future of London is an independent not- Established 2001, Rocket Science is for-profit urban policy network focused an independent research, consultancy on the challenges facing regeneration, and grant-management practice fo- housing, infrastructure and economic cused on making a difference to the development practitioners in the Capi- lives of people and communities across tal. We are a -led membership the UK. We work with governments, organisation with a number of external business and the voluntary sector to partners, which provides top career de- design and evaluate services which velopment, expert-led policy research, best meet the needs of different cities and topical networking and speaker- and localities. led events.

Future of London Rocket Science UK Ltd. 70 Cowcross Street 70 Cowcross Street London, EC1M 6EJ London, EC1M 6EJ

 futureoflondon.org.uk  rocketsciencelab.co.uk  @futureofldn  @_RocketScience_  Future of London  Rocket Science UK Ltd

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BIDs IN LONDON 4

3. FUNDING POLICY CHALLENGES 9

4. LONDON BIDs SWOT ANALYSIS 11

5. IMPACT: PROJECTS AND SERVICES 13

6. CASE STUDY: BID 21

7. COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP 23

8. CASE STUDY: SOUTH BANK BID 24

9. BID MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE 29

10. CASE STUDY: LOVE WIMBLEDON 34

11. SUPPORT FOR BIDs IN LONDON 36

12. CASE STUDY: ORPINGTON FIRST 40

13. RECOMMENDATIONS 41

14. CONCLUSIONS 42

15. APPENDIX 1: SCOPE 43

16. APPENDIX 2: DATA 44

17. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 47

© Future of London 2011 Ltd Future of London 2011 Ltd is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. Registered in and Wales (Reg. No. 7575624) 2 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 1 INTRODUCTION

Like so many of the systems and ser- while many people can’t say which in the context of gradual economic vices Londoners take for granted, Busi- initiatives and services are provided by recovery, is already proving extremely ness Improvement Districts (BIDs) have BIDs, their absence would be obvious. useful. become integral to the liveability of this Now, with more opportunity to move complex city. Quantitative economic im- from ‘branding, bins and baskets’ to The research has followed and com- pact may still be difficult to assess, but regeneration, planning and place-shap- plemented other projects, including a 1 move from a high street managed by a ing, Business Improvement Districts are review of BIDs and solid BID to one without that support, poised to become truly integrated into current research on business rates, and the difference is marked. What’s the municipal landscape. streetscape, planning policy and re- starting to happen behind the scenes lated developments, to make the project has even more potential – for BID mem- This growing influence also means outcomes as current and as broadly bers, the communities they serve and BIDs must be increasingly accountable useful as possible. the that host them, as well as for their actions, reporting not only to Finally, this report is designed to be for London’s competitive edge in the levy-paying members, but to a far wider shared beyond the GLA/LEP as commis- international destination rankings. group of stakeholders. BIDs, boroughs and other tiers of government also need sioner and the London BID industry, to Since their introduction in 2005, to navigate changing relationships – make the wider public aware of what London BIDs have evolved to generate political, contractual and operational. Business Improvement Districts can offer, project funding in the millions; explore how they can be sustainable – and new service, regeneration and Neigh- This report charts that path, through a what Londoners can expect of them. bourhood Planning opportunities; and detailed, independent assessment of thanks to Authority and the role, impact and potential of BIDs Notes on scope and research London Enterprise Panel grants, become in London, with a focus on high street process a cohort of 50 organisations stepping and centre BIDs. It builds on Project partners Future of London and up in an increasingly self-sufficient existing knowledge, updating the GLA- Rocket Science used desk research, municipal environment. commissioned 2012 study, but goes data analysis, surveys, focus groups beyond economic impact – notoriously and case studies to assemble the report In the context of London’s growing pop- difficult to gauge given London BIDs’ evidence. ulation and councils’ shrinking budgets, variety and the economic rollercoaster the recent Department for Communities from 2005 to 2016 – to back up the The research is concerned with the 36 and consultation on numbers with experience, and produce high street and town centre BIDs that BIDs has opened the door to far more actionable intelligence. were operational in October 2015. It participation in service delivery. does not include the industrial BIDs or Since 2012, several new BIDs have those that have since had successful Many BIDs already have a better rela- emerged, many with GLA and borough ballots. tionship with central government and support, and the Mayor’s target of 50 entities such as London BIDs by the end of his second For more information on the research than their local authority hosts do, and term has been met. Capturing the expe- process and scope, see Appendix 1. are an effective lobby. At street level, rience of these newcomers, especially

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 1 1.1 Executive Summary

Like many of the systems and services With a focus on high street and town There are challenges, of course. BIDs Londoners take for granted, Business centre BIDs (industrial BIDs are being re- must serve their business members first. Improvement Districts have become searched separately), this report covers Higher business rates and additional integral to this complex city. Quantita- the current state of BIDs in London; sup- levies could sap member willingness to tive economic impact is still difficult port, impact and collaboration to date; renew BID mandates. BIDs are not keen to assess, but move from a high street funding, planning and other threats; to become default council delivery bod- managed by a solid BID to one without and opportunities for new services, ies, and conversely, some councils and that support, and the difference is partnerships and influence. voters may balk at transferring control marked. What’s starting to happen to the private sector. behind the scenes has even more poten- In particular, the research highlights the tial – for BID members, the communities growing number of London BIDs with All of this leads to BIDs’ need to be they serve and the boroughs that host a significant effect on – and beyond – increasingly professional and account- them, as well as for London’s competi- their areas, bringing in vital investment able for their actions, reporting clearly tive edge in international destination and forging useful partnerships with the not only to levy-paying members, but rankings. public and voluntary sectors, as well to a wider public. BIDs, boroughs and as with other BIDs. In addition to their other tiers of government also have to As an industry, London’s Business traditional ‘bins, branding and baskets’ navigate changing relationships – politi- Improvement Districts are still emerging. remit, BIDS are now directly involved in cal, contractual and operational. Some are agents of growth and influ- regeneration, place-making, air quality ence, while others may have to prove and employment initiatives. Many of these factors will be tipping their value to members to survive busi- points for existing BIDs. There are still ness rates reform. It is a staggered field Given the context of London’s grow- areas of the capital that could really in which leading BIDs, trade bodies, ing population and councils’ shrinking benefit from a viable BID, but this is partnerships and the Greater London budgets, the recent Department for also a good moment to weigh up the Authority and London Enterprise Panel Communities and Local Government balance between support for creating are working to bring along the whole – consultation on BIDS has also opened new BIDs and nurturing the health, best and there is potential to do much more. the door to far more participation in practice and potential of existing BIDs. council service delivery. This report charts that path. Commis- As funding becomes increasingly com- sioned by the GLA and LEP as London That opportunity and the 50-BID mile- petitive, BIDs must work together – and approached the Mayor’s target of 50 stone make this a fitting time to shift with councils and other partners – to BIDs – a quarter of the UK total – the gears. BIDs offer a five-year revenue secure their status as credible, integrat- research assesses the impact and poten- stream, flexibility, government support ed partners for the long term. It will take tial of London BIDs in a fast-changing and lobbying muscle, local expertise all parties to drive the whole industry municipal environment. The findings and a focus on results. This gives them forward, but the potential for London is build on existing data, and back that a unique ability to innovate and make enormous, and the time to act is now. up with front-line experience as a basis tangible improvements at a time when for practical short- and longer-term local government is struggling to deliver recommendations. basic services.

2 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts BIDs

ENFIELD Hainault Business Park

BARNET

HARROW Argall WALTHAM Harrow BID FOREST HARINGEY Town REDBRIDGE Centre E11bid Ilford BID HAVERING I SL

I N BRENT G HACKNEY T CAMDEN ON BARKING AND Stratford DAGENHAM HILLINGDON Ealing Original

BID W ESTM TOWER NEWHAM HAMLETS London EALING CITY KE I Riverside A NS HA ND N S TE IN BID A MM CH West N G R D E T E L S O N Ealing F R E U S A L M BID H IT AM SOUTHWARK HammersmithLondon H GREENWICH BEXLEY HOUNSLOW Clapham BID Brixton RICHMOND WANDSWORTH BID LEWISHAM UPON LAMBETH Bexleyheath BID Twickenham BID Garratt Business Park Streatham BID

Love Kingston MERTON Wimbledon Willow Bromley First KINGSTON Lane BID UPON THAMES

BROMLEY Orpington 1st Kimpton Industrial SUTTON Croydon BID Park

Beddington CROYDON Successful BID Sutton New Purley Addington BID

Industrial BID (7)

Property BID (3)

Town Centre BID (38) BIDs London Borough

Camden Town Angel Unlimited BID AIM HACKNEY

CAMDEN

The Fitzrovia Partnership ISLINGTON Baker Street New inmidtown TOWER Quarter HAMLETS Company

Paddington Now Northbank Cheapside BID

WESTMINSTER Piccadilly and St Heart of London James Team Blue Victoria BID Better London Bermondsey South Bankside Bridge BID Bank BID Waterloo KENSINGTON Quarter BID AND CHELSEA SOUTHWARK

Vauxhall One

WANDSWORTH LAMBETH Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2015

© Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Ordnance Survey 100032216 ©Crown Copiright and database right 2016. Ordnance Survey 100032216

TheThe Evolution Evolution of of London’s London’s Business Business Improvement Improvement DistrictsDistricts 3 2 2BIDs BIDS IN in LONDON London Today 61,000 Total annual levy income 905,250 Total number of People employed £24.9 m firms in BID areas in BID areas

Total additional 78 income 13,300 Total number of £5.5 levy-payers Partnerships with million key stakeholders

Total Businesses on turnover BID boards 56 in BID Local authority areas representatives on BID boards £356.5 489 million

Additional services 156 provided by BIDs 66 Property owners 287 on BID boards Full-time empoyees

4 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 2.1 The emergence of BIDs

BIDs are a vehicle for coordinating tory of urban renewal in the capital. also entered their third term: Better business-led responses to the needs BIDs are a legacy of both top-down Bankside, Inmidtown, New West End of a defined area of a town or city. and bottom-up approaches to local Company (NWEC), Team London They originated in North America economic development and urban Bridge and the two Heart of London in the 1960s and 1970s to halt the regeneration. These include govern- BIDs. Term renewal is one of the most decline of downtown commercial ment-funded programmes such as City telling indicators of a BID’s success. centres. Following 20033 enabling Challenge and the Single Regenera- Eight BIDs with renewal ballots since legislation, BIDs steadily emerged tion Budget (eg Stratford Original 2012 all had increased turnout and in the UK, largely developing from and South Bank BID); developer/ approval rates (see Figure 2). the Town Centre Management (TCM) property-owner initiatives (eg Baker movement and following a different Street Quarter Partnership, Victoria The 36 BIDs in the scope of this 5 path from the US model. BIDs could BID); and those led by local business research tend to cluster in particular secure a sustainable income and act associations (eg Blue Bermondsey, boroughs, with eight in Westminster as a “funding remedy”4 for the TCM Orpington First). and six in Lambeth. The 36 BIDs are model’s reliance on voluntary busi- in 19 of London’s 33 local authority ness contributions. BIDs have been set up in very dif- areas. ferent parts of London. Some tackle There are now more than 200 town- manifestations of decline, particularly Since 2013, five London boroughs and city-centre in the UK, almost a poor-quality public realm and the have opted to host their first BID: City quarter of which are in London. Since subsequent negative perception of of London, Newham, Harrow, Bromley 2012 alone, an additional 20 BIDs the area. Others have emerged in and Richmond (see Figure 3). This have been established in the capital, already-prosperous areas to address suggests that, although still concentrat- with the greatest increase (28%) be- challenges associated with growth. ed within the Central Activities Zone tween 2012 and 2013 (see Figure 1). and , BIDs are increas- The first BID in London – Kingston First ingly a London-wide industry. The London BID landscape is to some – was set up in 2005 and in 2015 BIDs’ recent growth in inner London extent a reflection of the recent his- Numberentered ofits thirdBIDs term. in LondonSix others by have Year

60

Fig.1: Number of BIDs in London by Year

50

40

30 Number of BIDs Number

20

10

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 5 Fig.2: BID Ballot Turnout and Approval Rates explains why the number of busi- nesses, employees and turnover have increased disproportionately to the 100% growth in the overall number of BIDs: 90% 80% • The number of firms in BID areas 70% has increased by 89%, from 60% 32,250 in 2012 to 60,980 in 50% 2014; 40% • The number of people employed 30% in BID areas has increased by 20% 90% from 475,530 in 2012 to 10% 905,240 in 2014; 0% % turnout % in favour by number % in favour by rateable value • The turnover within BID areas has 2009/10 Ballot 2014/15 Ballot increased fourfold from just over

Source: BID ballot results. £72m in 2012 to over £356m in 2014.6 Total levy income secured by London Fig.3: New BIDs in London since 2013. BIDs has similarly increased from £14.6m in 2012 to £24.9m in 2015, at 71% markedly higher than the in- crease in the number of BIDs over the same period (39%). A major cause of this financial boost is the emergence of three property-owner BIDs in West- minster, home to some of the biggest rate-payers in London.

Source: Adapted from GLA and Ordnance Survey data.

Fig.4:BID Income Levy income and additional income £6,000,000

£5,000,000

£4,000,000

£3,000,000

£2,000,000

£1,000,000

£0

Levy Income Additional Income

Source: British BIDs.

6 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 2.2 BID funding and the local authority relationship

Despite the recession, BIDs’ income partners. recording a service contract with their from additional sources has seen a local authority inching up from 38% small increase as a proportion of their The continued prominence of income in 201210 to 41% in 2015.11 BID total income, rising from 16% in 2012 from local government may seem managers surveyed or interviewed to 18% in 2015.7 Additional income surprising given that council funding for this research either said they had sources are also relatively unchanged was cut 28% from 2011-15, and a insufficient capacity to take on council 8 since 2012, with local government further 10% in 2015/2016. Those services, or they were reluctant to do and voluntary business contributions cuts are sharpest in poorer areas, so when it compromised their raison being most common (see Figure 5). whose residents have experienced the d’être of providing additionality.12 greatest reduction in spending per However, as councils hunt for further However, these figures don’t tell the person (31% compared to an average savings over the next four years, BIDs 9 whole story. As several of the case 23% nationwide). are likely to feel increasing pressure studies in this report show, London to do more. BIDs are effective in using their posi- BIDs’ financial strengths – a five- tion to lobby for resources and invest- year revenue stream, flexibility and ment in their areas, whether in the leveraging (see SWOT, Section 4) – form of additional policing (through are among the things that make them the Mayor’s Office for Police and attractive to local authorities, perhaps Crime), funding for streetscape and especially in uncertain times. transport improvements (via Transport Operationally, an increasing number for London), or local regeneration of London BIDs are taking on the schemes (through joint bids with management of council services in borough partners to the Mayor’s High their areas, particularly community Street Fund). These sums may not safety, cleaning and environmental show up in the BIDs’ financial ac- management. However, the rate of counts, but BIDs have been instrumen- increase in the last three years has tal in securing them on behalf of local been low, with the number of BIDs

Sources of Additional Income Fig.5: Sources of Additional BID Income

Local government

Voluntary contributions from businesses

Property owners

Sponsorship

Other

Transport for London

Police

Central government

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

2012 2015

Source: Survey responses, ATCM.

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 7 2.3 Diversity in BID types

London BIDs are no longer confined West End Company, Heart of to town centre and city centre models London Business Alliance) with a retail focus. Although retail still • Partnership BIDs (eg South accounts for an average 38% of levy Bank BID, Baker Street Quarter income,13 there has been a steady Partnership) diversification of BID types in London: • Local authority-led BIDs (eg • City centre BIDs (eg Victoria BID, Cheapside BID) Inmidtown, Northbank BID) • Community-led BIDs (eg Blue • Town centre/high street BIDs (eg Bermondsey) Ealing Broadway, Orpington First, Croydon) Note that this report does not address industrial BIDs, the subject of sepa- • Property-owner BIDs (eg New rate GLA research.

2.4 Summary

The last 10 years have seen steady and nationwide suggests a buoyant growth in the number of BIDs in the – and maturing – industry. London capital. In that time, only one (Bay- is home to the UK’s only property- swater) has been disestablished. BIDs owner BIDs, with their larger income which have gone for a second or third streams, and many of the capital’s oc- renewal of their five-year term have all cupier BIDs attract significant inward succeeded, often with an increased investment. As they evolve, London’s mandate. Business Improvement Districts are in- creasingly important not just as effec- Though some BID propositions outside tive place managers, but as vehicles 14 London have failed, and large areas of business-led economic regeneration of the capital remain untouched by and urban renewal. BIDs, the growth in number in London

8 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 3 FUNDING POLICY CHALLENGES

3.1 Austerity and devolution

The state is shrinking. Nationwide, would need to be squeezed by as authorities to bridge between cuts local government grant is being cut by much as 58% by 2019-20, inevitably and rates retention, but whether some 56% between 2016 and 2020, from leading to further significant cuts.17 element of redistribution continues for £11.5bn to £5.4bn.15 The Chancellor vulnerable areas remains to be seen.20 has also signalled an end to formula Professor Tony Travers of the London grant post-2020, in exchange for a School of Economics and chair of Some councils find it natural to pri- “devolution revolution”, with local the London Finance Commission has oritise economic growth, but others authorities having the power to raise suggested that local government must may find the increased focus on busi- council tax and retain 100% of their transform from “mini-welfare state into ness uncomfortable, especially when 18 business rates.16 local economic growth agency”, fully commercial interests don’t align with responsible for generating sufficient resident (ie voter) priorities. Despite these self-financing mecha- revenue for service provision through nisms, there will be a funding gap. economic growth. Surveys suggests that these relation- estimates that the ships are already fraught, with consid- decade of cuts could lead to a gap in This dramatic re-think is easier for erably fewer people recognising the London of over £3bn (31%) by 2020. some than others – local authorities need for council cuts in 2015 (35%) In terms of where these cuts would differ enormously in scale and capac- than in 2011 (47%). fall, nearly 80% of local government ity. For those used to being supported revenue spend in London (£5.7bn of by more prosperous areas through £7.3bn) would be on statutory servic- rates redistribution, the “spectre of 19 es – adult and children’s social care, failure” may loom larger now. The public health and waste management. government announced two years Spending on non-protected services of modest transitional grant to local

Fig.6: Projected expenditure on services – 2010- 20 London local government.

Figure 6: Projected expenditure on services – 2010-20 London local government. Source: London Councils.

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 9 3.2 Business rate reform

Business rates, worth £26bn to the business occupiers, particularly in Lon- to charge a 2p supplement to fund Treasury, are on the brink of major don growth areas, which will bear the infrastructure projects will be new for reform. On top of devolution, the brunt of the rates shock, predicted by the other city-regions, London busi- whole system is under review, with BNP Paribas to include increases of nesses have been charged a Crossrail details to be announced in the March 80% in St Pancras and King’s Cross, supplement since April 2012. While 2016 budget.21 This is in response to 60% in Bond Street and 50% in new the target end date is 2037-38,26 a concerns from business rate payers developments on the South Bank.25 similar value-capture funding mecha- that the system is “in need of reform nism has been proposed for Crossrail to make them fit for purpose in a 21st This reform seriously threatens the 2. If the project goes ahead, London’s century economy”.22 viability of businesses facing abrupt businesses could be locked into the increases, with smaller businesses in financing of major infrastructure till Many organisations, including the As- high-growth areas particularly vulner- the late 2060s.27 sociation of Town Centre Management able. Furthermore, on the council side, (ATCM) believe the current system is austerity could make it difficult to In addition, the National Living Wage archaic and unjust: continue protective initiatives such as will rise sharply in April 2016, and small business rates relief. it is assumed that the next Mayor of “It is not fair that some highly prof- London will continue to put pressure itable multi-national corporations Decentralisation of rates points to a on businesses to pay the consider- minimise their tax liability by shift- changing relationship between BIDs ably higher London Living Wage, ing profits to low tax jurisdictions and their local authorities, especially which can be challenging for small leaving property-based businesses as it will be more in councils’ inter- businesses. At the other end of the from local shops to manufacturers est to see their business communities scale, larger employers will be paying to pick up the bill simply because thrive. However, while local authori- the Apprenticeship Levy from April 23 property cannot be shifted.” ties won’t be able to increase rates, 2017.28 Businesses could start to they may be pressured to add other object to paying for this gamut of na- The rate revaluation, deferred to charges to their funding strategy such tional, pan-London and local financ- 2017, will hit London harder than as late night levies and tourism taxes. ing mechanisms. the rest of the country, as the govern- ment’s desire for the system to remain Despite the government’s firm commit- “fiscally neutral”24 means the econom- ment to devolution, most of London’s ically resilient capital will compensate businesses continue to be affected by for the impact of the recession in both central and pan-London deci- other regions. Investors are concerned sions. Although the proposed power that this will have a profound effect on for combined authorities with mayors

3.3 Summary

In 2014, Ward and Cook wrote that “the combination of the financial crisis and the state-led austerity programme has made the operating climate for UK BIDs harsher.”29 Business rates reform has changed the game again, and it remains to be seen whether get- ting (part of) the fiscal devolution Lon- don business and government leaders have called for will be a blessing or a curse.

10 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 4 LONDON BIDS SWOT ANALYSIS

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES • Define and promote a geographic area • Don’t always have funds to match ambitions • Have reliable five-year income stream • Can’t always demonstrate hard economic impact • Have clear focus on membership • Lack of awareness (businesses, boroughs, residents) of • Respond nimbly and with local knowledge BIDs and their impact • Provide enhanced services to their areas • Conflicts between business and borough interests, and occupiers (levy-payers) and property owners • Deliver public realm projects for the wider community • Less professional BIDs hamper overall sector maturity • Improve area safety and security • In strengthening thriving areas, BIDs can increase • Provide conduit for boroughs and pan-London entities to inequality, and shift socio-economic problems to engage with business surrounding areas • Advocate on behalf of BID members and area • Other business networks compete to broker services • Leverage funding from different sources • Those against privatisation of London’s public space • Initiate/support inward investment could find BIDs unpalatable • Broker and develop partnerships between public, private and voluntary sectors • Have formal working agreements with host boroughs • Have ongoing national political support

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS • Local authority cuts could provide opportunities to bid for • Local authority cuts leave BIDs vulnerable to picking up more borough services services not in their business plan or skill-set • Cuts could allow greater role as agents of economic • Budget pressures of rates devolution could strain BID– development and regeneration delivery borough relationships • Rates devolution could make BIDs more pivotal as strong • Additional levies could compete for business revenue conduit between council and businesses • Rates revaluation could mean unsustainable hikes in • Localism agenda could mean long-term role in place- businesses’ tax burden in growth areas making through Neighbourhood Planning • Continuation of permitted development (office-to- • Strengthen borough and public relationships through residential) could undermine BID base and income increased visibility/accountability • Increasingly competitive funding landscape • Establish more property-owner BIDs to increase levy • Streamlined process for BIDs to form neighbourhood income for designated areas plans could give developer members disproportionate • Growing focus on place-based giving initiatives and the influence over area opportunity to link with BIDs work on CSR • Insufficient stewardship could lead to BID business • Reduce costs through more joint procurement and shared community turning against it services • BIDs may lack capacity to benefit from collaboration • GLA/LEP could reduce funding/support for BIDs

4.1 Analysis

Three themes cut across the SWOT: area, plus their local-level knowl- skills and capacity to meet grow- Funding, awareness and collabora- edge, are real strengths. Regeneration ing borough and business expecta- tion. is fundamental to London’s growth tions. An insufficient number of and prosperity, but regeneration and levy payers is a significant threat to Funding planning departments face signifi- the viability of individual BIDs, and Changes to the business rates system, cant cuts. With their responsiveness, can be exacerbated by compet- propelled by the government’s austeri- flexibility and ability to leverage ing policies and levies (see Section ty and decentralisation initiatives, pre- funding, BIDs are logical partners for 3.2). Larger BIDs may be cushioned sent a clear opportunity to strengthen boroughs in uncertain times. from the worst, though their members the BID–council relationship. For local could face the highest business rates government, BIDs’ interest in improv- However, not all BIDs are financially revaluations. How many smaller BIDs ing, defining and promoting an equal, and smaller BIDs may lack the will stay viable?

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 11 Awareness Neighbourhood Planning increases. the cost of their business plans and of In a devolved landscape with more BIDs may be best resourced to lead additionality. these efforts, but being seen as ‘tak- competition for business rates rev- Further, local authorities will have to enue, BIDs must become indispensa- ing over’ could foster bad feelings from community groups lacking the consider all revenue options, and the ble to both levy payers and the wider private sector will always be a target. community. corporate weight (and interests) of their BID counterparts. For example, additional levies such Currently there is no consistent meas- as the Late Night Levy are already urement of BID impact; some measure Collaboration starting to appear across London. footfall or employment change, but “Councils know they will have to Faced with more of these mandatory few consider wider socio-economic work more with their business com- charges, businesses could withdraw impacts and there is no London-wide munities – the question is how.” – support from the BID at the next ballot set of indicators or timeframes. Being Senior borough economic develop- in an effort to cut the one optional able to demonstrate hard economic ment officer charge. To avoid this, it is the respon- lobby impact would be a huge help in sibility of BID management to It has already been noted that rela- the authority proving their worth. Property agents to keep charges reason- tionships between local government acknowledge the positive effect of able. and business are being redefined. It is BID improvements to a neighbour- worth reflecting on how complex this BIDs also need to have their collec- hood, but don’t believe that being a is. Not only are businesses and public tive voice heard on national policy. BID area has a positive effect on the bodies entirely different in terms of The General Permitted Development saleability/value of property. structure, objectives and accountabil- Order in particular poses a serious In this situation, perceptions become ity, but BIDs represent the interests of threat to BID viability. The conver- more important. If the wider com- a specific business community which sion of a single block from office to munity is not aware of a BID’s needs to see a return on its invest- residential could permanently erase positive impact, it could engender ment. part of a BID’s levy if occupiers relo- negative feelings and associate them cate outside the BID area. Although The growing maturity of the sector is with the ‘privatisation of public the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) an asset. Individually and as an indus- space’ debate. Sian Berry, Green and Tech City are exempt till 2019 try, BIDs are earning higher levels of Party mayoral candidate, recently (see Section 5.1), the rest of London trust, more money and greater room pledged a change to the remains vulnerable. Similarly, conver- for manoeuvre; all useful in collabora- Crossrail 2 levy regarding the governance of publicly sations on the , which tions with local government. As this accessible places,30 and University of will affect a significant proportion report shows, this is borne out through East London academic Anna Minton of London’s business community, are the brokering of effective partner- recently gave evidence against BIDs starting to heat up. ships between the public, private at the London Assembly Regeneration and voluntary sectors. Discussions In 2016, the London BID community Committee.31 around BID capacity and appetite for has strength in numbers, with 50 Are weaker, less professional or taking on more municipal responsibil- BIDs – the Mayor’s target – now in transparent BIDs damaging the sec- ity through service transfer will be- place. Whether it’s a group of BIDs in tor’s reputation? How best to counter come more frequent, and easier if the one area jointly procuring or sharing the ‘empire-building’ stigma of one relationship is solid. This would open services, or the whole industry having managing company running a number up new income streams for BIDs, but one voice on a policy matter, the of BIDs? What can these companies they could start to feel like victims of opportunities for collaborating exist. do to publicly safeguard the BID USPs their own success; by demonstrating But BIDs’ individuality means that col- of independence, uniqueness and that they are able to procure a service laboration is not always possible, and competition for funding ultra-local knowledge? Clarity will efficiently and cost-effectively, they will is inevitable also be key as BID involvement in be expected to do more, potentially at in some cases.

12 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 5 IMPACT: PROJECTS AND SERVICES

The following assessment of London laboration with other BIDs and public BIDs’ front-line impact measures authorities, to have strategic influence their evolution against the signifi- on a range of London-wide priorities. cant changes to boroughs’ role and This brings a number of challenges capacity. As illustrated here, BIDs are for management, governance and already delivering far more than town transparency, not least around the centre management. They have the measurement and reporting of their potential, particularly through col- impact.

5.1 The roles of London BIDs

BIDs’ roles are multi-faceted: as BIDs as service providers London BIDs tend to diversify their service providers on behalf of levy Providing services is the most vis- offer through their initial five-year payers in specified locations, but ible way that BIDs demonstrate their lifecycle. Having proven their ability increasingly also meeting the needs of impact. The original remit of BIDs to deliver core services, they become catalysts and a wider community; as remains the provision of enhanced trusted with more complex projects, enablers of innovative projects which cleaning, environmental management leveraging additional income and be- address different policy priorities for and community safety initiatives. coming recognised as public–private London, including employment and These are increasingly complemented sector conduits. skills, environmental management by a range of additional services influencers and The rate of that transition can vary. A and air quality; as including place-shaping and market- campaigners number of BIDs still in their first term again on behalf of levy ing, as is evident in newly-branded payers and the BID area, but with the are benefiting from partnering with TfL areas of the capital such as Midtown on local projects, including sustaina- capacity also to speak out on London- and Northbank, and in the prolifera- convenors and ble transport, safety and security and wide issues; as local tion of uniformed street ambassadors conduits environmental and greening schemes. to the business community, in London’s town centres. and as research repositories for a For example, TfL co-funded Vauxhall wide range of socio-economic data “We have two restaurants; the One BID’s Green Trail project,32 which and intelligence on different localities other one is in [an area of] west has helped to regenerate the local across London. Some BIDs are all of London where there isn’t a BID and area through sustainable planting, these but many, for want of resources, I can really feel the difference.” and jointly funded the Wonderpass focus on particular activities. – Levy payer, Angel BID with Baker Street Quarter Partnership to offer pedestrians an immersive art experience as they cross safely beneath Marylebone Road.33 BID ActivityFig.7: Areas BID Activity Areas Meanwhile, Blue Bermondsey, estab- Events lished in October 2014, is already Place marketing forging ahead with initiatives to Lobbying/advocacy challenge perceptions of the area, in- Community safety cluding art projects and guided walks Environmental management building on the area’s history as the Local purchasing initiatives ‘larder of London’. Cleaning In the context of continued council Business support cuts, BIDs are also having to redefine Place-shaping the ‘additionality’ of their services, Regeneration calling into question the validity BID area ambassadors of their baseline agreements with Employment initiatives councils. Whilst BIDs have historically Other (please specify) provided services beyond a minimum level agreed with the local author- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 ity, some BIDs are starting to deliver Number of BIDs services themselves when these come under threat (eg Better Bankside street Source: Survey responses.

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 13 Fig.8: Evolution of BIDs as service providers.

Source: Unlimited Renewal and Extension Proposal, 2016-2020

cleaning; Victoria BID additional council services, but we simply do not The flexibility of the levy also gives uniformed security). have the resources to do so.” As many BIDs the option of co-investing in BID leaders are former local authority initiatives with a longer-term eco- Government grant cuts usually target officers, they appreciate how difficult nomic development benefit. BIDs are councils’ revenue, rather than capital, – and expensive – it can be to run well placed to act as incubators and funding. BIDs’ regular revenue source high-quality public services. For them catalysts for a range of pilot projects makes them attractive partners for it also represents a potentially risky which, if successful, can be replicated local authorities, especially where distraction from their core business of or scaled up in partnership with other premium services are expensive to meeting the needs of levy payers. organisations. maintain. For example, Heart of Lon- don Business Alliance (HOLBA) funds Of the 28 BIDs surveyed on this issue, BIDs of all stages and sizes play this an enhanced cleaning programme for 11 currently have a service contract catalytic role. Blue Bermondsey, for Leicester Square, following a major with a council, and of the 17 who do example, acted as an enabler for the public realm improvement scheme not, seven expressed an interest (see Bermondsey Community Kitchen,34 funded by property owners, Westmin- Figure 9). offering unemployed 16-25-year-olds ster council and TfL. Partners agreed the opportunity to train for a career the baseline service was no longer BIDs as incubators and cata- in professional cookery. Although the adequate to maintain a high-quality lysts idea came from a local cafe owner, environment for this international A BID’s levy income provides flexible the BID included the community destination. Heart of London now funding for an annual programme of kitchen in its initial business plan and provides the additional service. services which the BID’s management has since identified various sources of agrees with its members. This tends to funding, establishing links with local Statutory services, however, are a be drawn from a set menu of activi- schools and youth services which have harder sell. A number of councils ties including place-marketing, events, been instrumental in its foundation. (including Camden, Lambeth, South- public realm improvements and clean- wark and Westminster) are interested ing, loyalty cards, shared procurement In Angel, the BID initiated a project in their BIDs’ capacity to deliver local schemes, security and, increasingly, in partnership with the council, local services. However, most BIDs are uniformed street ambassadors (see businesses and the voluntary sector 35 cautious. As one BID chief executive Figure 7). called Age Friendly Angel. This com- put it: “We would love to deliver more prises a range of marketing measures,

14 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts Fig.9: BID interest in delivering services Local Authority Services for local authorities 18

16

14

12

10

8 Number of BIDs Number 6

4

2

0 Does your BID have a contract with the local authority to deliver any Would your BID like to have a contract with the local authority to services? deliver services?

Yes No Source: Survey responses. streetscape and public safety improve- and Vauxhall One) to increase its through several of the BIDs.37 The Low ments which, by enhancing Angel as scale and impact under a shared Line is a nod to the High Line in New a place to shop and dwell, will attract brand, Employ SE1.36 York which also re-imagined an under- more of the ‘grey pound’ into local used stretch of railway infrastructure. shops, cafes and restaurants. The continuous chain of BIDs along The viaduct already houses a variety the south side of the Thames now of small businesses; the Low Line will Established BIDs with small manage- provides a wider business-led partner- help more locate in the railway arches ment teams thrive on this catalyst role. ship for collaborating on larger-scale so the routes become busier, safer Team London Bridge, for instance, projects. This includes the Low Line, and more welcoming. piloted an employer-facing job broker- coordinated by Better Bankside, to age, then worked with BID partners maximise the regeneration potential (Better Bankside, We Are Waterloo of the railway viaduct which runs BOX1 Collective Temperance Hospital

Collective, run by the charitable arm of Camden Town Unlimited (CTU), of- fers free hot-desking and subsidised office space to creative start-ups. In 2015, CTU acquired the lease of part of the derelict National Temperance Hospital and has opened the space to entrepreneurs as Collective Temper- ance Hospital. The Temperance Hospital will be demolished to make way for new rail lines if the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail line goes ahead, preventing long-term regeneration of the site. Collective’s meanwhile use was sup- ported by Camden council to help minimise the blight of vacant buildings in the area potentially affected by HS2.

The hub also provides meeting, event and classroom space. The project has used its High Street Fund award to make the ground, first, and second floors of the building available. Collective is now inviting proposals for the upper floors which match its objectives of supporting local businesses and regenerating the high street.

15 BIDs as influencers and cam- for example, lobbied the capital. They are particularly useful paigners to relax visa regulations, which it says for targeted communications, given London’s BIDs have become increas- would increase the number of Chinese their locations in places of strategic ingly vocal. This campaigning role tourists coming to London and bring importance. Of the 15 metropolitan has grown in parallel with local in an estimated £330m. NWEC has centres and two international centres authority budget cuts, and with the also lobbied the Treasury on reform identified in the London Plan, 10 are increased threat to BID members of of Sunday trading hours, which the now home to a BID. double- or triple-paying through new BID believes could generate an extra 2,000 jobs in the West End and more Pan-London authorities have found levies, higher business rates and BIDs to be invaluable partners. infrastructure charges. A BID’s ability than £200m a year in additional sales.38 Senior officers from the Metropolitan to provide a voice for local businesses police regularly provide briefings to is valued by members: At one point, NWEC was lobbying on BID chief executives so that they can “If you are a resident you can vote, as many as 25 separate issues, but cascade information and advice on but as a business you have no vote, it has recently changed tack, recog- business resilience and community you just pay the rates. It’s a very nising that other business groupings safety. Transport for London (TfL) has passive relationship.” – Business – including the new Inner London recognised the importance of BIDs owner in a London BID BIDs group (see Section 7.2) – can to its programme of stakeholder and be a more effective voice on common public engagement, liaising with BIDs BIDs need to be politically savvy. issues. both on day-to-day operational issues, From one issue to the next, they can travel advice and strategic projects find themselves in partnership or in London BIDs’ independence does such as Crossrail 1, the Tube moderni- opposition to their council. Angel BID mean they will disagree on some of sation programme and the £4bn Road has a strong relationship with Isling- the capital’s policy challenges; BIDs Modernisation Plan. ton council but still found itself lead- are in separate camps, for example, ing a successful campaign against a on Heathrow vs Gatwick airport BIDs’ evolving role change to the council parking policy. expansion. Nevertheless, when BIDs The research asked London’s BIDs do coalesce on an issue they can be about the importance of involvement London BIDs also speak individually a very effective lobby. in a number of strategic areas. The and collectively to nurture London’s BIDs as conduits need to collaborate was recognised competitive advantage as a global as essential by the most BIDs, and city, and as one competing for invest- London’s high street and town was the most important element on ment with other UK city regions. The centre BIDs provide a conduit to balance. Strengthening performance New West End Company (NWEC), over 60,000 businesses across the indicators also scored well, dem- BOX2 Permitted development rights

In 2013, permitted development rights (PDR) were temporarily amended to allow changes of use from office to resi- dential without the need to seek planning approval. Some areas were made exempt from the new PDR, including London’s Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and east London’s Tech City.

In 2015, central government announced a consultation to extend PDR and remove the exemptions. London BIDs were concerned about the impact on their member businesses and the local economy. Office-to-residential conver- sions threaten BIDs’ revenue, since loss of commercial property reduces their potential income base. They argued that not only those businesses which lose their premises are affected by PDR, but also those that rely on the custom of employees based in the area. Further, London residential values provide a financial incentive for landlords to change the use of the best commercial property, rather than the less desirable, underused space which the govern- ment’s policy was intended to target.

London BIDs joined the , the London Enterprise Panel and others in successfully lobbying the gov- ernment not to remove the PDR exemption. In March 2015, 37 BIDs signed a letter to the Secretary of State asking that the exemption be extended to include all of Greater London. In October 2015, the Department for Communities and Local Government announced that the existing exemption will remain in place until May 2019. In order to keep the exemption after this date, local authorities will be able to issue an Article Four Direction, which allows them to make a local change to the planning regulations. 16 Fig.10: BID priorities

14

12

10

8

6 Number of BIDs of Number

4

2

0 Delivering council services Increasing additional income Developing a Neighbourhood Strengthening performance Collaborating with other BIDs Plan indicators

Not Important Quite Important Very Important Essential Don't Know

Source: Survey responses.

onstrating an understanding of the projects and services, and most of it is of baseline data would allow BIDs to importance of evidence for improv- publicly available. BIDs’ direct access isolate the effects of their own per- ing industry perceptions. Delivering to businesses combined with cuts to formance, rather than relative effects council services was seen as the least council economic intelligence units compared to areas with often wildly important, suggesting that there needs means BIDs are becoming increasing- different characteristics. to be more dialogue between BIDs ly valuable sources of socio-economic and their host boroughs on this critical data. A standard of data-gathering adopted issue. across all BIDs would become a valu- While many BIDs gather data them- able resource to the GLA and bor- BIDs as research and data selves (or use public datasets for ough officers, as well as being shared repositories their area), there is no standard set and updated via the GLA’s London Several of London’s larger BIDs fund of metrics across all BIDs, making Datastore. an annual research programme. performance comparison difficult. The Data is primarily used to inform BID lack of baseline data for many areas proposals or to measure the impact of presents a further problem. Collection BOX3 Crossrail 2

Given Wimbledon’s status as a key transport hub, its BID, Love Wimbledon, has forged a close working relationship with Transport for London. This has included using poster sites to promote the town centre and providing a conduit for TfL to engage the local business community.

Crossrail 2’s managing director, Michèle Dix, recently spoke at a meeting convened by Love Wimbledon and at- tended by over 80 businesses and landlords, as well as Merton council senior management, councillors and Merton Chamber of Commerce. As a result of interventions coordinated by the BID, Crossrail 2 published documents which provide clearer information on the potential phasing of the nine-year project in order to minimise disruption. 17 5.2 Economic data analysis

This research has included the collec- Of the BIDs in outer London where ing areas; proximity to central London tion and analysis of data from 2005 turnover growth was markedly strong- and segmentation of businesses by and 2014 on three key metrics: num- er in the fringe than within the BID, sector to distinguish between retail bers of businesses within a BID area, Twickenham and Sutton were only and office uses. their turnover, and number of employ- recently established, while Croydon ees. This data was also compared to and Ilford deserve closer investigation. Interviews with property agents a 200m fringe area for each BID.39 confirmed the difficulty of directly Figure 12 demonstrates that there is a attributing economic impact to BIDs, The figures show that, in general, BID positive relationship between growth although all those interviewed stressed areas performed more strongly than in turnover of businesses within the the qualitative impact of BIDs. The their fringe areas, and that there is a BID area and the number of years consensus was it would not be pos- weak but tangible positive correlation a BID has been in existence, which sible to attribute directly any element between the number of years a BID suggests that a BID may be partly of the rental or investment value of a has been in existence and the growth responsible for business growth. commercial property to the presence in turnover of businesses within the of a BID, or to its presence within a BID boundary (see Figure 11). Longer- Analysis of growth in the number BID, although one did acknowledge established BID areas performed bet- of firms was contradictory. BIDs in that, “Yes, probably there is a fall-off ter across all three metrics. However, central London were expected to expe- in value on the wrong side of the there are many other factors relating rience stronger growth than outer Lon- boundary” and that the “walking ter- to wider economic trends at na- don; this was borne out by increases ritory of the ambassadors” is the most tional and local level; the nature and of 30% and 21% respectively, but the visible sign of difference. strength of neighbouring localities; fringe areas achieved stronger growth and, in particular, a BID’s proximity to in outer London of 24%. On the other hand, all agents ac- high-profile areas of central London. knowledged that the presence of a For jobs growth, BID areas exceeded BID has an influence on the attractive- The West End, for instance, is home fringe areas across the whole data- ness of a location. Aspects explicitly to a strong local economy. Three BIDs set, and again BIDs in the CAZ were mentioned were security, cleaning, where turnover growth was markedly more successful – they had combined events and street ambassadors, as stronger in the fringe than within the growth of 21% compared with 9% well as a more over-arching observa- BID area are located here – New across the whole dataset. tion that a BID improves the image West End Company, Fitzrovia Partner- and perception of a town centre. Results suggested that analysing data ship and Heart of London. In the West Many of the agents were directly for 2005 and 2014 is still unhelpful, End there are many more powerful involved with BIDs, some as board since so many London BIDs are still drivers of economic growth than the members. This would indicate that young: the comparison includes too presence of a BID, especially for BID activities – and connections – are many years before they were estab- office-based businesses; in this area valuable, even if they cannot link them lished. To gain real insight into the there is limited value in comparing a directly to increased property rents. effectiveness of a BID, analysis should BID with its fringe in terms of turnover take into account: length of time in ex- growth. istence; characteristics of neighbour- BOX4 BID research, thought-leadership and data-gathering

Team London Bridge funds a programme of bi-annual research outputs which it makes available on its website. New West End Company publishes analysis on the impact of particular developments and policy changes on the West End, including a recent report which concluded that the opening of Crossrail together with the potential ex- tension of Sunday trading hours could lead to a near 100% uplift in West End turnover. Better Bankside publishes detailed research, along with summary discussion documents, to canvass partners’ interest in co-investing in local initiatives. Northbank and Victoria BIDs have commissioned books on each of their areas in order to ensure the BIDs’ work acknowledges the longer-term, historical context.

18 Property agents confirming that the Fig.11: Change in turnover in BID area and appearance and condition of a town 200m buffer area 2005-14 centre is critical to attracting shoppers and retailers suggests an ‘implied -200% -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700% 800% value’. There may be some evidence Hammersmith London of this: New Addington BID • Events bring in shoppers and if they generate additional turnover Cheapside

that enhances the desirability as a Victoria BID business location, which ultimately translates into rental value. Better Bankside • In centres that have both an Love Wimbledon

indoor, managed shopping centre E11 BID and a BID, the occupiers inside the centre pay a service charge We Are Waterloo

for maintenance of the indoor en- Northbank vironment and a BID levy for man- agement of public realm outside. Team London Bridge

The fact that they accept both The Fitzrovia Partnership charges suggests support for the Blue Bermondsey work of the BID. The centre man-

agers and major retailers from the Camden Town Unlimited covered centre generally become Harrow Town Centre actively involved in the BID; this willingness to be involved is a Stratford Renaissance Partnership strong indication that they value Baker Street Quarter Partnership the BID’s work.

Angel London • A key factor for office occupiers when making location decisions HOLBA - Leicester Square to Piccadilly is the ability to recruit and retain Clapham Business Community staff, and the image and percep- tion of a town centre contributes Paddington Now to this. As well as the quality of Inmidtown the public realm and amenities, safe streets and way-finding all Ilford BID contribute to the image, some of Vauxhall One which are beyond the control of the BID. Try Twickenham

Croydon BID

Ealing Broadway BID

West Ealing BID

Brixton BID

Kingston First

Successful Sutton

New West End Company

HOLBA - Piccadilly and St James

Streatham BID

Orpington First

Bexleyheath BID

South Bank BID

Turnover change in BID area Turnover change in buffer area

Source: TBR.

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 19 Fig.12: Growth in turnover within Growth in turnover vs years in existenceBID area vs years in existence

300%

250% 14 -

200%

150%

100%

50%

0% Change in turnover ofbusinesses within BID area, 2005

-50%

-100% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Number of years in existence

Source: TBR

5.3 Summary

This survey of town- and city-centre agendas, boroughs will need to start At the same time, the lack of base- BIDs in London reveals that they are a dialogue with their BIDs early, and line data for each BID area makes it performing an increasing variety of work towards a situation that benefits difficult to link economic effects with functions as agents of day-to-day both parties. Ten years after the crea- BID activity, though older BIDs have place management and longer-term tion of London’s first BID, the question naturally had more time to make an regeneration. The characteristics remains whether, in the context of impact within the 10-year timeframe which seem common to BIDs operat- councils’ increasing focus on nurtur- of this review. The indications that ing across these different roles is their ing local economic growth, BIDs are BIDs have an effect on economic de- flexibility to respond quickly to new only capable of strengthening thriving velopment are worth exploring further, opportunities or demands and their districts, potentially widening gaps and a standardised set of metrics to capacity to innovate (albeit sometimes between London’s successful and be measured regularly for each BID in pursuit of a competitive advantage unsuccessful areas, or whether they would help provide the level of ac- for their particular area). can also regenerate areas of market curacy required. weakness. However, as local authority service delivery does not seem high on BIDs’

20 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 6 CASE STUDY Victoria BID: focusing on the BID’s role as a catalyst and incubator

Established 2010; mandate renewed 2015

Businesses 260

Staff 5

Levy £1,516,970 income

Additional £289,503 (busi- income ness contribu- (source,value) tions £189,503; property owners £100,000)

6.1 Background

Victoria Business Improvement District new railway terminus to the Palace provides complementary services is closely involved in the ongoing of Westminster and was given the to businesses and residents of the transformation of Victoria from a monarch’s name. But it has also estab- area which range from promoting rather sterile, office-dominated envi- lished Victoria as a destination, with the area and attracting investment to ronment to a lively urban hub, com- upgraded rail and tube stations and influencing and mitigating the effects bining new homes, modern offices, major developers and landowners like of development itself. As highlighted high-street retail and diverse cultural Land Securities and the Grosvenor below, the BID has been the catalyst and leisure facilities. This revives the Estate partnering Westminster council for a project to promote and enhance area’s prestige as the thoroughfare to transform the area. its green spaces. which 150 years ago connected a Now in its second term, Victoria BID

6.2 Impact and value

Victoria BID reports quarterly on a tive assessment of the returns on the benefits accruing from this investment. range of indicators with a bearing on £4bn investment in Victoria’s rede- the success of the area and the BID’s velopment. Whilst Victoria BID didn’t The 2015 BID renewal ballot was coordinating and, in some cases, claim direct responsibility for all those as good an indicator as any of the catalytic roles. benefits, bringing them together in an perceived value of Victoria BID by its annual update helped the BID make members. The results were 85% in In 2014, the BID produced a more a convincing case for the transforma- favour on a turnout of 62% (compared 40 detailed Vibrancy Report, based tion of Victoria and the wider social, to 67% and 55% in 2010). on a format used by US BIDs, which economic, environmental and cultural is both a qualitative and quantita-

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 21 6.3 Relationship with the local authority

The BID has a close working relation- The council has encouraged the BID when it renewed its mandate in 2015. ship with Westminster council. The to support the work of the Victoria The council has partnered the BID on council is a strong proponent of BIDs Neighbourhood Forum which will en- a range of public safety and security and, where appropriate, is keen to able the forum to access Community projects, including supporting street find ways for the eight BIDs across Infrastructure Levy funding to support wardens and collaborating to address Westminster to work together to de- the development of a Neighbourhood the high number of rough sleepers in liver services. Plan for the area; it was also support- Victoria. ive of the BID extending its boundary

6.4 Innovation and replication: Greening the BIDs

In 2010, Victoria BID undertook a tors. It also led to the implementation the objectives of the Mayor’s green ground-breaking green infrastructure of green infrastructure projects includ- infrastructure strategy, the All London audit. This mapped, described and ing a 350m2 living wall at the Palace Green Grid. Supported by £150,000 analysed all the existing and poten- Hotel; the development of a tree strat- of Drain London funding, 15 central tial green infrastructure features in egy and the installation of beehives London BIDs have now completed the area. The aim of the audit was to along with beekeeping courses. green infrastructure audits, identifying encourage more use of greenery in opportunities for 300 rain gardens, the area, which is dominated by hard Each BID green infrastructure scheme 200 green walls and more than surfaces. The idea of greening the BID is funded in thirds, by the BID, grants 100ha of green roofs. complemented developers’ objectives and business(es) benefiting from the to transform Victoria’s hard 1960s scheme. The recently installed rain A further £210,000 of Natural urban environment, but an independ- garden outside John Lewis’s head- England, Drain London and may- ent evaluation also showed that creat- quarters in Victoria Street, for exam- oral funding secured by Cross River ing a greener Victoria would deliver ple, was part-funded as a demonstra- Partnership has levered £440,000 of savings to BID members and the wider tion project along with the GLA and private-sector investment to increase community. Natural England. London’s biodiversity and enhance its environmental resilience. To date, the Over several weeks, a team mapped Carrying out a green infrastructure Greening the BIDs programme has parks, verges, streets and rooftops audit provides a BID with potential delivered 22 green infrastructure as- to identify options for adding green projects and partnership opportunities sets in central London, including bird spaces and enhancing existing areas. within its area; Victoria BID’s member- boxes, planters, green walls and roofs The audit provided recommendations ship of the Cross River Partnership and rain gardens. Each project is on how green features could reduce (CRP), has given the initiative a wider majority match-funded by the private flood risk, increase biodiversity and catalytic effect. CRP now manages sector. make the area more appealing to visi- the Greening the BIDs project for the GLA.41 The project contributes to

6.5 Lessons

Working with partners like Cross River rate effectively to deliver considerable Partnership has rapidly scaled up a public–private investment for a London project proven to work within one BID priority. It counters the assumption of area, taking the ‘think global, act many BIDs that their differences (often local’ environmental credo to the sub- highlighted for competitive advantag- regional level. es) mean they have little to gain from working together. The green infrastructure audit is also an example of how BIDs can collabo-

22 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 7 COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP

7.1 BIDs and boroughs

Section 3 highlighted the extent of The existence of a baseline agree- have responded to cuts by redefining the changes facing local government. ment template, funded in part by the their role as enablers see BIDs as Councils are now running out of ways GLA, has been invaluable in setting integral to establishing new forms to deliver further cuts through savings. up BIDs. However, as several council of service delivery and stimulating Instead, many are considering how officers concurred, the agreement local economic growth. Boroughs they can become ‘enablers’ rather should not be a short-cut for detailed which have taken this approach so far than direct providers of certain ser- preparatory work to ensure that the include Westminster, home to eight vices.42 Now encouraged by central agreement is an accurate reflection of BIDs; Lambeth (six); Southwark (four) government to raise more of their each BID’s unique circumstances. and Camden (three). own revenues locally, many London boroughs are showing growing inter- As there is not a mechanism to force Westminster, for example, recently est in BIDs and the opportunities they the local authority to adhere to a instigated regular meetings between present for collaboration and partner- baseline agreement, a council can the leader of the council, the cabinet ship working. However, public–private unilaterally reduce the level of service. member for regeneration, business partnerships are far from straight- Representatives of some of London’s and economic development and the forward and need to be carefully more established BIDs have ques- borough’s BID chief executives. This nurtured. tioned the continued value of baseline is a clear signal to the BIDs that they agreements, especially with dimin- are regarded as key to the economic BIDs appeal to councils for differ- ished council funding for services. growth of the borough. The meetings ent reasons. Inevitably, as councils An alternative view expressed by will identify opportunities to contract become more stretched, they will some BIDs is that a regularly updated out services, including to local BID become more aware of BIDs’ ability baseline would provide transparency partnerships, as well as enabling to procure services at a competi- and allow for more informed decision- the BIDs to report back on council tive price, and will want to consider making. On the other hand, the recent services in their areas. whether further cost-savings could be government consultation considers made if a BID took on a greater role whether a standard and legally bind- In Lambeth, a bi-monthly BID forum on their behalf. ing form of service level agreement brings together the borough’s BIDs between BID bodies and local authori- and senior officers from different Local authority structures vary and ties should become mandatory. departments to identify joint initiatives relationships with BIDs are handled (eg established BIDs supporting new by different departments in different Public–private partnership or proposed BIDs in the borough) as boroughs. Some are the responsibility In contrast to the laissez-faire ap- well as opportunities for joint pro- of the chief executive’s department; proach some councils have adopted curement and sharing of back-office in others, the relationship lies with with BIDs, others are seeking pub- services. Lambeth’s transformation regeneration or economic develop- lic–private partnerships. Councils that into a ‘Cooperative Council’ includes ment; and in some, reflecting the town centre management origin of BIDs, it sits with environmental services. Fig.13: Cross River Partnership members

This lack of consistency in how councils engage with BIDs may also explain differing views on the value of BID baseline agreements, which are used to set out the existing level of service provision in order that the BID can demonstrate the additionality it will offer. Most of the newer and smaller BIDs which took part in this review commented on the usefulness of their baseline agreement. They also recognise that in the context of localism and continued cuts, baseline agreements need to be more flexible, to accommodate service changes from one year to the next, and to be far clearer in defining statutory versus non-statutory services. Source: Adapted from Cross River Partnership.

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 23 reviewing whether there are oppor- novation in the design and delivery of council’s business community, CTU tunities to break up bigger contracts services (see Section 7.2). and the other Camden BIDs worked as they come up for renewal. Smaller with officers to explore the extent contracts, delivered more locally, will Communication of BIDs’ investment role, in order to provide opportunities for BIDs (eg “This government listens to business strengthen their case to the council. Vauxhall BID will take over manage- a lot more than it does local authori- Central London councils are now ment of Vauxhall Park under a council ties.” – Senior council officer considering a tourist levy on hotels, contract). The forum also lets BIDs and BIDs need to be part of those propose and test new ideas, includ- It is in the mutual interest of BIDs and conversations. ing South Bank BID’s proposals for a local authorities to have regular points shared apprenticeship scheme and an of contact and clear communication Systems for engagement need to initiative to promote the living wage channels. A visible and proactive BID be robust, however, as there will be in the area (see Section 8.4). can support the council by lobbying occasions when the BID’s and the for its area. BID chief executives who local authority’s interests conflict. In At a sub-regional level, Cross River have a profile locally and with central Croydon, relations between the BID Partnership (CRP) brings together 15 government can be useful allies. and the local authority became tem- BIDs and eight local authorities from porarily strained last year when the the central London area to collaborate Camden Town Unlimited, for example, council’s Labour administration took on a range of pilot programmes. CRP lobbied the council strongly to help umbrage at the blue uniforms, along often uses a cocktail of private and secure a 30% discount on the Late with bowler hats, of the BID’s new public funding sources to both achieve Night Levy in all Camden’s BID areas. street ambassadors. They now wear economies of scale and stimulate in- After making the case for the signifi- an eye-catching pink. cant effect the levy would have on the

7.2 The London BIDs community

Drivers of collaboration organisations which typically have a Town Centre Management (ATCM). A survey of 31 London BIDs con- relatively small permanent staff. Many of London’s BIDs are members ducted in 2015 identified numerous of both organisations, recognising London’s businesses would undoubt- that they provide complementary examples of collaboration, and con- edly benefit from a unified business siderable interest in doing more.43 The expertise and services, particularly in voice for lobbying, and a coalition of relation to set-up, management and main drivers cited were the opportu- London’s BIDs could be an effective nity to achieve greater economies of governance, as well as their represen- means of doing so. While this would tation at a national level. scale and better value for money from not be easy to coordinate, or indeed sharing procurement or expertise, and to reach consensus across numerous Both British BIDs and ATCM also see to give BIDs a stronger collective voice separate business entities, a cohe- their roles as enabling BIDs to col- within London. sive BIDs voice could play a key role laborate. Between them they manage Perceived impediments to collabora- in sharpening London’s competitive various regional BID networks and, in tion included the strong sense of edge. This will become increasingly ATCM’s case, last year coordinated a difference between BIDs in terms of important as devolution is rolled out to number of applications from BIDs in their aims, location and size, and an the city-regions, some of which – such the capital to the London Regenera- inherent sense of competition which as Newcastle upon Tyne – have one tion Fund. Both organisations observe, stems from championing a particu- well-respected BID representing the however, that in comparison to some lar locality. BIDs’ lack of time and city’s business community to its local other parts of the country, London resources was also noted. authority. BIDs are a relatively weak network, with one spokesperson referring to a Certainly inter-BID collaboration is As the following examples show, col- “loss of collegiate spirit.” A similar neither easy, nor always appropri- laboration is happening as much by sentiment has been expressed by sen- ate. As London’s BIDs reach 50 in chance as by design, with an ad hoc ior GLA officers who have said that, number, they are an increasingly mix of BID-financed infrastructure and compared to other business groupings diverse group, with varying interests, area-based partnerships, supporting in the capital, BIDs do not yet “punch dynamics and agendas. As one BIDs inter-BID collaboration and cross-bor- their weight” on matters of business expert put it: “Partnership is vital, but ough public–private initiatives. and economic policy. what you see on the surface is only Industry and trade bodies ever a fraction of what’s going on. It A group of BID chief executives has BIDs have two national trade bodies: takes a lot of work to engender those recently taken steps to address this British BIDs and the Association of relationships.” This is challenging for by proposing an Inner London BIDs

24 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts alliance as a vehicle for lobbying at a There are already numerous instances the last few years HOLBA has formally London government level. The goal is of formal and informal collaboration subcontracted to its neighbour. to promote greater awareness of their between BIDs in London. Established BIDs’ work and maximise collabora- BIDs are piggybacking and mentoring The same two BIDs, plus Northbank tion opportunities on shared interests newer ones, both within a borough and Baker Street Quarter Partner- with other inner London stakeholders. (eg Ealing Broadway supporting West ship, are also members of the West Several interviewees, including BID Ealing BID, a process helped by the End Partnership, comprising the West chief executives and a BIDs expert at fact that they share a chief executive), End’s two boroughs (Camden and the Department for Communities and or across a sub-region (eg Kingston Westminster) and strategic partners Local Government, have questioned First providing advice to Love Wimble- which include the GLA, TfL and the 44 the necessity of another representative don on preparing for its term-renewal . The BIDs, how- body. However, in the context of fur- ballot next year). ever, work as one within the Partner- ther government devolution, to London ship, and are currently represented on and on to sub-regions of the capital, Neighbouring BIDs are likely to find its board by the Baker Street Quarter this development is only a reflection of the logistics of sharing staff and ser- Partnership. vices more straightforward. The new current realities, and of the increasing Networks and partnerships divergence of BID interests in London. Bromley BID is keen to develop a joint approach to public realm improve- The growing number of BIDs in south- Cross-borough and inter-BID ments by working in partnership with (Croydon, Kingston, collaboration the longer-established Orpington Sutton, Twickenham and Wimbledon) Any recommendation relating to First. Within central London, where a has prompted informal networking London BIDs’ collaboration or joint number of BIDs share borders, there is with the makings of a more formal representation has to be tempered by a strong case for local partnerships, a arrangement for exchanging ideas the fact that they remain fiercely inde- process facilitated in Westminster by and collaborating on projects. Skills pendent organisations. GLA officers the council’s BID forum. One BID is in development and knowledge transfer are the first to acknowledge that future effect another’s gateway, with mutual are essential to any maturing indus- collaboration at a pan-London level, interest in the quality and efficiency of try, and particularly vital to one that or in any alternative multi-borough or services across multiple BID areas. The needs to raise its profile. The consul- shared-interest group, needs to come New West End Company (NWEC) tancies which manage multiple BIDs from the BIDs themselves, working and the Heart of London Business across the capital also cross-fertilise with the grain of existing infrastructure Alliance (HOLBA) have recognised ideas and projects between BIDs, and partnerships, rather than impos- this in the marketing and promotion countering the perception and nega- ing new top-down structures. of London’s Luxury Quarter, which for tive connotations of empire-building BOX5

Employment schemes

The provision of local employment schemes, particularly job brokerage services, is a key commitment for a number of BIDs. Individual BIDs like Angel collaborate with their local council’s employment services and Orpington First is partnering a large housing association, Affinity Sutton, to prepare their unemployed residents for job opportunities in the town centre. In the City of London, the Cheapside Business Alliance has commissioned Step Ahead to run an employment service tar- geted at getting unemployed City and City Fringe residents into work within the Square Mile.

A good example of BIDs working together at scale to provide such services is Employ SE1, a job brokerage scheme estab- lished by four BIDs in Southwark and Lambeth: Better Bankside, Team London Bridge, We Are Waterloo and Vauxhall One. Launched in 2011, Employ SE1 now employs two staff and advertises over 100 vacancies a month. As of June 2015, the project had 300 local employers registered and was advertising more than 200 jobs.

Cross River Partnership, the public–private partnership comprising both boroughs and BIDs, also set up and manages Recruit London, supported by the New West End Company and Westminster council, along with landowner partners the Crown Estate, Capital and Counties and Jobcentre Plus. The scheme uses landowner-hosted workplace coordinators to find and train job seekers for local vacancies. It is an inclusive service, with a recently appointed specialist available to provide support for candidates with additional needs such as health conditions, aligning it well with the proposed focus of the government’s new Work and Health programme. 25 highlighted in the SWOT (see Section tive Groundwork London. This politi- CRP of £3,000 (local authorities pay 4). cally neutral shared space is key to £10,000), providing a core income helping BIDs and boroughs work with for 2015/16 of £102,000. Between As members of Cross River Partner- other strategic partners on a common 2012-15, for every £1 paid in mem- ship, a group of central London BIDs agenda. bership fees, CRP leveraged £45 in has gone furthest within a sub-region- external funding. The Greening the al partnership structure to demonstrate Providing project management BIDs project (see Victoria BID case the value of BID collaboration and resources and specialist expertise to study, Section 6) and the Clean Air take successful pilot projects to scale. support the BIDs, CRP is also ex- Better Business initiative (see Box 6) Eight boroughs and 15 BIDs are perienced at leveraging additional illustrate how working in partnership members of CRP, each with a place income from the GLA, TfL, Department helps local authorities, BIDs and the on the board, alongside the GLA, for Work and Pensions and European voluntary sector have a significant im- London and Partners, TfL, Network Union Structural Funds. The BIDs each pact on London’s key policy priorities. Rail, and voluntary-sector representa- pay an annual membership fee to

7.3 Summary

As the “new kids on the municipal shows that many BIDs are already block”,45 BIDs are having to find their aware of this point and are up for feet in a fast-changing environment the challenge. As new BIDs continue for both local government and wider to emerge whilst others mature, the governance arrangements in London. London BID community will become In these uncertain times, it will be increasingly diverse. This will require BIDs with an enterprising mindset, po- a variety of support arrangements litical nous, an open and supportive and partnerships – both area- and relationship with their local author- issue-based – to help BIDs maximise ity and a propensity to collaborate their contribution to London’s policy with others which succeed. Figure 10 priorities.

BOX6 Clean Air Better Business

Clean Air Better Business (CABB) is an initiative led by Cross River Partnership (CRP) and funded by the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund Round 1, with match funding from 15 BID and local authority partners. Poor air quality is a major problem for London. Recent research commissioned by the GLA and TfL suggests that it is responsible for the early deaths of over 9,500 people a year in the capital. The CABB programme brings together public and private partners to deliver a number of projects aimed at mitigating harmful emissions from transport, particularly from the freight industry and London’s taxis.

In addition to awareness-raising and nudging behavioural change among the business community, CABB’s outputs have included delivery and servicing plans for businesses to reduce trips and emissions, a zero- and low-emission supplier directory, travel-to-work planning, a pool bike scheme and the development of an air quality widget for inclusion on individual BID websites.

The scheme works on the principle that better information, resources, and joint working not only reduce air pollution, but also deliver efficiencies and savings for partners. CRP has applied to the second round of the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund in order to expand its activities and offer more services via the BIDs. 26 8 CASE STUDY South Bank BID: delivering services within a wider strategic partnership

Established 2014

Businesses 184

Staff Nil

Levy £450,000 income

Additional Significant in- income come generated (source,value) through other (re) investment mecha- nisms that oper- ate in the South Bank area, such as the London Eye section 106 agreement.

8.1 Background

South Bank is one of the newest Lon- the Lambeth/Southwark boundary, by engaging a wider range of busi- don BIDs, servicing one of the city’s South Bank BID is part of a chain of nesses in area development, service most vibrant and popular destinations BIDs stretching from design and delivery. for Londoners and visitors. The BID Vauxhall to London Bridge. was proposed and developed by the SBEG provides the BID with man- South Bank Employers’ Group (SBEG), The redevelopment of the South Bank agement and operational support, a partnership of 18 major employers since SBEG was established has been along with access to well-established which has operated in the area for 25 hugely successful, with the number of revenue streams plus the expertise of years, having come together to lead visitors per year increasing from three the South Bank Partnership, a group the regeneration of an area tagged as million in 2000 to an estimated 25 co-chaired by the two local MPs and “cardboard city” for its rough-sleeper million in 2015. A victim of its own including all key stakeholders in the encampments, dilapidated public success, the area is now seen as a area’s management and develop- 47 realm, and rising levels of crime. ‘neighbourhood under pressure’, also ment. Whilst the BID has a board the title of the South Bank Partner- separate from SBEG, it has no staff, SBEG secured a GLA grant to help set ship’s 2014 Manifesto and Action and maximises value to levy payers up the BID and successfully balloted Plan.46 The BID was created as one by keeping overheads low. local businesses in 2014. Straddling way to relieve some of that pressure,

8.2 Impact and value

South Bank BID reports quarterly to As one of several organisations which valuable South Bank brand, managed members on indicators such as crime is committed to the vision and aims of by SBEG’s marketing team, and can rate, footfall, environmental indicators the South Bank Partnership, the BID use its visitor data and analysis at no and savings to businesses. It is distinct both benefits from and contributes to cost, or list on SBEG’s popular south- – and has considerable potential – in the management and regeneration banklondon.com website,48 with its operating within the regeneration con- of the area. One example is how the high traffic. As a next step, SBEG is text of a key commercial and cultural BID contributes funding, in addition looking at innovative ways to monitor district of inner London, and across to revenues SBEG receives from the visitor patterns and experience, mak- two boroughs. London Eye section 106 agreement, ing this data available in a way which for extra neighbourhood policing. An- demonstrates clear public benefit. other is how BID members tap into the

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 27 8.3 Relationship with the local authority

Most of the South Bank BID is in board has councillor and officer mem- ing local service contracts, provided Lambeth, though a small area falls bers from both. South Bank BID is an they relate to its primary focus on within Southwark. In accordance with active member of the Lambeth BID fo- ensuring that the South Bank is clean, legislation regarding cross-boundary rum, a discussion group which focuses safe and well-managed. The train- BIDs, Lambeth is the lead authority on common interests, including the ing supports SBEG’s discussions with and was responsible for the ballot, identification of opportunities for BIDs Lambeth and others on the opportuni- with Southwark the consultee. The BID to take on borough service contracts ties and challenges of the devolution has separate operational and base- as they come up for renewal. agenda, including maximising the line agreements with each borough. BID’s potential. Regular, constructive meetings are In 2014, SBEG secured a grant from held with Lambeth and Southwark the government’s Community Right to councils, and the South Bank BID Challenge Fund to build skills in secur-

8.4 Examples of innovation – New employment initiatives and Living Wage South Bank

SBEG has supported local employ- ers by making the Living Wage the the living wage, with the zone work- ment initiatives for several years and default entry-level pay rate on the ing to make this 100%. was instrumental in setting up and Employ SE1 job brokerage site. managing the Waterloo Jobshop49 The new approach remains innova- in 2002. The SBEG chief executive is In collaboration with the Living Wage tive, but is also more achievable in keen to use the South Bank BID to ex- Foundation and London Citizens, terms of securing both large and small tend the reach of the Employ SE1 job South Bank BID has started Living employers’ buy-in. The resource to brokerage (currently supported by four Wage South Bank. Moving from an support this work will be channelled BIDs south of the river – see Box 5) initial concept of a Living Wage Zone through SBEG, drawing on funding and explore the potential of a South and the notion of a defined geograph- from the South Bank BID, charitable Bank Apprenticeship Programme. ical area with rules around compli- trusts and business sponsors; it will be ance,51 Living Wage South Bank is a delivered with support from London BIDs have been identified as a way commitment to support employers to Citizens, the Living Wage Foundation to drive up the number of employers work towards accreditation as a Living and the GLA, which will provide sen- paying the London Living Wage by Wage employer. The redesign reflects ior office time and strategic leverage promoting it to members. The London some of the lessons and learnings through the Mayor’s Office. Assembly’s 2014 report, ‘Fair pay: from work in other potential zones Making the London Living Wage the which ultimately struggled because norm’,50 highlighted Team London many businesses, especially small Bridge and Vauxhall One as examples retailers, could not meet the criteria of good practice, nudging employ- whereby 75% of businesses must pay

8.5 Lessons

Few BIDs in London have the luxury circumstances and new political pri- management and area regeneration. of operating in the way South Bank orities, a BID can be a useful vehicle As the concept of Living Wage South BID does, tapping into the experi- of business engagement alongside Bank moves ahead, there is a readi- ence, resources and infrastructure of other stakeholders and multi-agency ness to work with other BIDs and local an established business-led regen- partnerships. SBEG and the South authority partners on its potential eration partnership. It is an example Bank BID are looking to collaborate replication. of how, as approaches to inner-city with others in order to develop, test regeneration adapt to changing fiscal and roll out new approaches to place-

28 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 9 BID MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

As BIDs deliver more services and “increasing concerns raised regard- Evidence gathered for this review become more visible, they will come ing transparency and accountability suggests that, by and large, London’s under increasing public scrutiny. The of BIDs. With an industry nearly a BIDs are up to the challenge and industry recognises this. In the light decade old, it is no longer good in many cases their pursuit of good of the government’s review of BIDs in enough to rely just on a ‘leap of governance goes beyond accounting 2014,52 British BIDs acknowledged: faith’ but instead high quality to levy payers. professionalism targeted at benefit- ing those who pay must be para- mount.”53

9.1 Transparency and accountability

London’s BIDs vary in size and geog- vate and public partners that they can “At their best, BIDs can be genuine raphy, membership and priorities, and confidently engage and support BIDs drivers of change and catalysts for their activities reflect that. However, renewal, growth and jobs, [but] there are areas in which greater con- Transparency and accountability as- the consistency of their delivery is sistency would be beneficial, includ- sume even greater importance when mixed. The government is keen to ing governance. BIDs take on additional services and empower BIDs further, however any responsibilities. If these are under development towards additional BID managers acknowledge the value contract to the local authority, the BID powers needs to be accompanied of the GLA-funded ‘BIDs Handbook’ also becomes subject to Freedom of by greater transparency and ac- which, echoing British BIDs’ guidance, Information requirements. countability for those that pay.” recommends a number of measures – BID chair and senior manager at A national high-street retailer which is to ensure BIDs are accountable and national retailer transparent.54 It is in BIDs’ interests to a member of several BIDs in London is demonstrate high standards of govern- aware that they are at a key moment ance from the outset, to reassure pri- in their development:

9.2 Quality standards and accreditation

Acknowledging that some BIDs in Lon- finances, performance management, Few smaller London BIDs have been don have work to do on governance, communication and reporting. Similar accredited, but an exception is Love one CEO put it bluntly: “My chair has to standards like Investors in Peo- Wimbledon, whose chief executive been in post too long, but he isn’t ple, the accreditation costs between saw this quality mark as demonstrat- going anywhere.” Many are more pro- £1,875 and £2,500 and lasts for ing the organisation’s professional active. Croydon BID, for example, fol- three years, after which a full reappli- capabilities to national retailers such lowing its successful second ballot in cation is required. as Boots and Marks & Spencer. 2015, initiated a major governance review which involves benchmarking “Accreditation … is a mark of Team London Bridge found seeking practices against the UK Corporate the robust and transparent gov- accreditation useful the first time Governance Code55 and installing a ernance that underpins our or- around, as it challenged the BID to ex- senior independent director and an ganisation providing assurance to ceed the minimum standard. However, audit committee to increase transpar- our members and stakeholders.” the BID found the process less helpful ency and inject some new blood. – London BID CEO the second time. This suggests that there is an opportunity for the reac- Croydon has also been accredited by “With the BID industry still rela- creditation process to reflect better the British BIDs, one of 13 London BIDs to tively young and not always well changing needs of more mature BIDs, do so (out of 23 nationally). Accredi- understood, we feel accredita- which would also address a common tation is a five-stage process involving tion is especially important in refrain among BIDs that it is hard to elements of self-assessment and an setting straight those who do apply a one-size-fits-all approach. independent audit leading to external not appreciate the significance verification.56 This assesses all aspects and substance of the industry.” of a BID’s work, including govern- – London BID CEO ance, management and operations,

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 29 9.3 BID staff and management

To date, BIDs have attracted executive will require different skills. However, tive both to local authorities looking and front-line staff with a range of survey responses suggest that the to initiate BIDs and – by providing the backgrounds. These include regenera- make-up and number of staff have not management team – to cost-conscious tion professionals, local authority offic- changed significantly since 2012. business members once the BID is in ers, town centre managers, marketing, place. Some interviewees suggested event management and communica- London’s BIDs remain lean organisa- that the prominence of a few BID man- tion specialists. BIDs’ different origins, tions. As Figure 14 demonstrates, agement specialists may be limiting priorities and ambitions account for 70% of BIDs have five or fewer full- the development of more permanent 58 some of this diversity, but the sector is time staff. BID chief executives cite skilled professionals fully embedded also starting to standardise skills and the need to minimise overheads to within a BID. training. provide value for money to members and ensure that revenue is spent on This management model does, how- Professional development services. As the nature and mix of ever, provide these BIDs access to a The growing number of people mak- these services change, BID leaders level of staff resource and expertise ing a career in BIDs has generated will have to consider how to balance which are out of reach for small or demand for a learning and develop- overheads and effective delivery. start-up BIDs. Indeed, it also brings ment framework, which has been into focus the question of a BID’s One option is for BIDs to share recognised by the industry. British optimum size, and the long-term vi- back-office services; another is to use BIDs provides its members with the ability of smaller BIDs where the levy specialist consultants to advise on opportunity to develop and accredit income cannot support a sufficient particular issues. Six BIDs in London staff skills, through a post-graduate- management team. Nevertheless, it currently employ at least one full-time level Certificate in BID Management.57 is unclear whether BID boards which consultant, whilst 16 engage consult- Since the launch of the course in choose to outsource their manage- ants on a part-time basis.59 2013, 23 BID staff have graduated, ment are reviewing and re-tendering including 11 from London. Role of consultants these contracts (eg at the start of each five-year term) to be sure they achieve Another driver for continuing profes- A small number of specialist consul- best value for money. sional development is likely to come tancy organisations provide manage- from growing external expectations. ment services to around a quarter of As more BIDs move into place-shap- the town and city centre BIDs in Lon- ing, neighbourhood planning and don. Their systems for setting up and regeneration, in addition to place managing BIDs offer efficiencies and management and marketing, they economies of scale which are attrac-

Staff CapacityFig.14: BID Staff Capacity

0-1

2-3 time - 4-5

Part 6-10

10+

0

1 time - 2 Full 3

4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of BIDs

Source: Survey responses.

30 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 9.4 BID boards

British BIDs’ guidance states that: “The the representation of larger national ers of smaller firms. However, many overall governance of the BID should businesses.61 More than half of BIDs BIDs – even some of the high-profile be representative of the business area surveyed report that they now have a ones – have found sustaining board covered by the BID.”60 However, as local voluntary/community organisa- member engagement a challenge, London’s BIDs evolve, there are signs tion on the board, up from just over a despite having terms of reference set- that their adherence to this principle is third in 2012. ting out expected levels of attendance beginning to change. and involvement. As a response to More than 480 business representa- this, Victoria BID decided in 2012 to Several CEOs of older BIDs note that tives sit on BID boards across Lon- recruit and pay a part-time executive 62 in the formation and early days of the don. The level of business engage- chair, and is also now considering BID, it was important in establishing ment with BIDs is significant and is paying board members in recognition credibility that the board represented indicative of the value levy-payers of the increasing demands on their its levy payers and that members were attach to the BID. Most of the larger time. drawn from different sectors (SMEs CAZ BIDs attract senior managers and larger businesses, independents and directors from blue-chip compa- and national retailers). However, once nies, to work alongside owner-manag- the BID has shown its capacity to en- hance essential services for members and begins to take on a more strate- BoardFig.15: Representation BID board composition gic and influencing role, knowledge and skills requirements – and de- Local businesses mands on board members – change. Local authority

There has been relatively little change National business in the average size of BID boards Police (12 members in 2012; 13 in 2015). However, as illustrated in Figure 15, Voluntary and community organisation possibly reflecting the growing matu- Resident/community group rity and diversification of BIDs, there Other is a shift in the composition of boards, including a decrease in local author- 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ity representation and an increase in 2012 2015

Source: Survey responses.

9.5 Managing conflicts of interest

The recent establishment of three new levy from every member business (oc- supplementing £1.05m from the levy property owner BIDs in central London cupiers and owners) is pooled, fund- on occupiers. The BID has separate on the same footprint as existing ing a variety of interventions across boards for owners and occupiers, occupier BIDs (the New West End both BID areas; by contrast NWEC with representatives of both on a BID Company, as well as two within the ring-fences the levy for each of its directors’ board. This structure was set Heart of London Business Alliance) streets (Oxford Street, Bond Street and up partly to accommodate the large presents a new governance challenge. Regent Street), reflecting the tradition number of property owner members There may be occasions when oc- of their strong and independent street of the BID, but also to ensure that cupiers’ and owners’ interests do not associations and the need to work owners and occupiers can discuss align. The former are more likely to with the grain of local community poli- issues separately in a safe space. The be concerned with BID services, which tics and existing structures. BID’s experience to date suggests that address the area’s current needs; the combining the interests of both groups latter will have more of an eye on the Baker Street Quarter Partnership, is feasible. long term, and the BID’s potential to although not a property BID, is increase property values. something of a hybrid set-up, estab- Many central London BID boards have lished in 2013 with strong backing a strong representation from major The chief executives of London’s prop- from the Portman Estate. Voluntary developers. Several BIDs are being erty owner BIDs are confident in their contributions from landowners make increasingly drawn into planning (in governance models. In HOLBA, the up £100,000 of its income each year, or adjacent to their areas) through

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 31 Neighbourhood Forums and their they can bring considerable financial development of Neighbourhood Plans; resources and expertise to the table. this is fertile ground for conflicts of BIDs do seem increasingly aware that, interest. A number of responses to in facilitating the work of Neighbour- the Department for Communities and hood Forums, they must be clear on Local Government BIDs consulta- whether they are representing the tion flagged this issue, stressing the interests of the neighbourhood as a requirement for clear governance whole, or of their levy payers, whether structures to avoid giving unfair owners or occupiers. commercial advantage or influence to individual BID members, even if

9.6 Local authority representation and engagement with BIDs

As a manifestation of localism, BIDs where the board includes the local council services, independence is key. reflect both its strengths and weak- ward councillor and an officer). Communication occurs in other ways, nesses. Empowering business commu- such as the BIDs’ regular meetings nities to become involved in shaping The same story is repeated across with the leader of the council. Whilst places has brought new energy and London, with widely varying levels of this is clearly an arrangement which ideas to town centre management and council representation on BID boards, works for Westminster, structures for area-based regeneration. London’s in terms of whether officers and/ engagement and representation will BIDs are, however, unevenly spread, or elected members are on boards; continue to vary from borough to which has led to a patchwork of whether members are portfolio hold- borough. models. ers or ward councillors; and whether the council’s representatives have vot- BIDs tend to have relationships with The piecemeal emergence of BIDs in ing rights or observer status. different council departments (town London means there is no standard centre management, economic devel- approach to local authority represen- In 2015, Westminster council, fol- opment, electoral services, business tation on boards; even in the same lowing consultation with its BIDs, rates) and their services intersect with borough, council representation can introduced a policy that no elected even more (public realm, community vary from one BID to the next. In member or council officer would sit safety, waste management, skills and Camden, different arrangements exist on a BID board. This has brought employment). It is not easy for a small with each of the borough’s three BIDs greater consistency and openness in BID team to maintain a dialogue with (Camden Town Unlimited, where a the authority’s relations with its BIDs, everyone across the council, so having cabinet member, but no officer, is on signalling a new phase in their work- a senior-level single point of contact the board; The Fitzrovia Partnership, ing relationship. with the local authority is invaluable. which has both a cabinet member and The council had recognised that as officer on the board; and Inmidtown BIDs develop their capacity to deliver

9.7 Community engagement

Most BIDs in this review recognise them distinctive as organisations. Bankside, Brixton BID and The Fitzro- the governance implications of their On the other hand, BIDs are under via Partnership now have a community changing relationship with local increasing pressure to review their representative on the board. authorities. As they become fixtures in governance to accommodate repre- more London communities, and take sentatives from the wider community. Indeed, BIDs like Angel have inten- responsibility for the delivery of more tionally positioned themselves as local services, BIDs will be account- BIDs can cite council representa- community-based organisations. Oth- able to a far wider constituency than tion on boards (where this exists) as ers, like Team London Bridge, include their levy payers. providing a voice for the community. the residential community alongside However, this may not suffice as BIDs other stakeholders in their structure This presents a dilemma: on the one continue to develop. Most BIDs have (see Figure 16). hand, as many chief executives and significantly increased their use of their board members are quick to print and social media in order to point out, BIDs are first accountable communicate beyond their member- to levy payers, which is what makes ship. A number of BIDs such as Better

32 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts Fig.16: Team London Bridge organisational structure

BUSINESS

BOARD

EXECUTIVE TEAM

TfL CROSS RIVER LANDOWNERS/ GLA PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPERS

RESIDENTIAL BRITISH NETWORK LONDON SOUTHWARK COMMUNITY BIDs RAIL BIDs COUNCIL

RESPONSIBLE CREATIVE SECURITY BUSINESS FORUM NETWORK FORUM

GREEN MARKETING NETWORK GROUP

RIVERSIDE SAFER SOUTHWARK LONDON BRIDGE TRANSPORT NEIGHBOURHOOD GROUP FUNDERS AND GATEWAY GROUPS

GLA BIDs POTTERS FIELDS PARK STEERING GROUP MANAGEMENT TRUST

Source: Team London Bridge, Business Plan 2016-21.

9.8 Summary

As London BIDs take on additional services, either on behalf of local burdening the organisation with responsibilities for place-making and authorities or in partnership with disproportionate bureaucracy, associated service delivery, their them. which risks losing businesses’ management and governance will interest. • How to retain the essence of a increasingly be tested. This presents BID as a business-led agency • How to ensure councils and BIDs economic development practitioners in local development at a time can work effectively towards and BID leaders in particular with the when BIDs are under increasing shared strategic objectives, whilst challenge of managing complexity pressure to open governance recognising that their interests will and a number of paradoxes: and involvement to the wider not always be aligned. • How to continue to keep BID community. overheads low whilst responding • How to increase the transparency to opportunities to deliver more and accountability of BIDs without

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 33 10 CASE STUDY Love Wimbledon: the BID as a convenor and enabler

Established 2010; mandate renewed 2015

Businesses 420

Staff 5

Levy £1,516,970 income

Additional £28,000 (busi- income nesses £9,000, (source,value) including £2,000 voluntary contri- butions; property owners £5,000; sponsorship £14,000)

10.1 Background

The Love Wimbledon BID is funded tram and bus services. Membership lic realm (“any start-up organisation by over 70% of the 600 businesses benefits are clearly spelled out and has first to earn trust and establish its in Wimbledon town centre with a range from communications and track record”). The BID has actively rateable value of at least £20,000. marketing support (including a Wim- used its baseline agreement with In 2015, the BID was accredited by bledon Privilege Card) through access Merton council to ensure that agreed British BIDs, which the chief executive to shared services like recycling, to standards of service are maintained, says is important in securing the con- regular networking events and free in spite of financial pressures on the fidence of major high-street retailers. membership of Merton Chamber of borough. The BID has no desire to The BID provides a range of services Commerce. take over or maintain council services, to members, who are sustaining Wim- since its offer to businesses is focused bledon’s place as one of London’s Like most small town-centre BIDs on providing additional value. most popular shopping and business recently established in London, Love destinations and one of its busiest Wimbledon has paid considerable at- transport hubs, combining tube, rail, tention to the improvement of the pub-

10.2 Impact and value

Love Wimbledon reports quarterly valuable two-way communication tool between the BID area and its residen- on crime rate, footfall, environmental for members, who tend to use tial surroundings. Love Wimbledon co- indicators, satisfaction of members during the workday, and for the wider operates with the Wimbledon Village and the public, and quantifiable sav- Wimbledon community, which comes business association, which operates ings to businesses. The BID also holds alive on Facebook in the evenings. outside the BID area, but its core con- an annual consultation event for all stituency is its business membership in stakeholders, which helps set priori- The BID’s chief executive acknowledg- Wimbledon town centre. ties for the year and engages a wider es how difficult it is to tie economic range of community interests. The BID impact directly to the BID, partly uses social media as an increasingly because there is an automatic contrast

34 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 10.3 Relationship with the local authority

Love Wimbledon proved its value The Future Wimbledon visioning a conduit for TfL to the local business early through its work with Merton exercise, whilst serving as a backdrop community. council and Transport for London. to town centre masterplanning, also Soon after the BID’s formation, the demonstrated the effectiveness of the On a more strategic level, the BID council approached Love Wimbledon BID as a champion for Wimbledon as lobbies the Crossrail 2 team, keep- to form a partnership project called a place. Like other councils, Merton ing businesses informed of emerging Future Wimbledon, a major exercise manages a diverse range of town plans for Wimbledon through regular in developing a vision and long-term centres, so it is incumbent on the BID meetings, and working behind the strategy for the town centre.63 The to sustain the council’s interest in ad- scenes to share the views of local process began with the Future Wim- dressing Wimbledon’s needs. Merton stakeholders. Crossrail 2 Managing bledon conference in 2013, including council recognises the strategic impor- Director Michèle Dix spoke at a meet- presentations from architect Richard tance of Wimbledon as an employ- ing convened by Love Wimbledon Rogers and entrepreneur and TV per- ment hub and inward investment and attended by over 80 businesses sonality Theo Paphitis who has a base brand and retains a close working and landlords, council senior manage- in Wimbledon, and political leaders relationship with the BID, and a senior ment, councillors and Merton Cham- from the GLA and Merton council. council officer has an observer role on ber of Commerce. the board. The BID then partnered with the coun- The BID also hosted a land owner fo- cil’s regeneration team in 2014 to run The BID’s convening and enabling rum, again in partnership with Merton an international design competition role has since extended considerably council to represent the views of land with New London Architecture and the in response to a major economic owners and investors in Wimbledon Commission for Architecture and the development challenge for the town as part of the Crossrail 2 conversa- Built Environment to attract ideas for centre in the form of Crossrail 2, a tion. Following interventions coor- the town centre from architects, artists, significant factor in Wimbledon’s dinated by the BID, Crossrail 2 has students and community groups.64 As future development. Given the town since published clearer information for well as the main competition, which centre’s status as a key transport hub, Wimbledon businesses and residents attracted entrants from Wimbledon to Love Wimbledon has, from its outset, on the potential phasing of the nine- New York, the BID also organised a forged a close and highly produc- year project, to minimise disruption. local schools’ competition which re- tive working relationship with TfL, for ceived nearly 150 entries from young example, using poster sites to pro- people. mote the town centre and providing

10.4 Lessons

Largely as a consequence of the centre in line with the council’s emerg- BID’s work, local conversations on ing Future Wimbledon vision. Love Crossrail 2 have moved from a nega- Wimbledon is keen to learn from the tive standpoint, encapsulated in one successes and challenges of Crossrail levy payer’s comment, “Welcome to 1, and engage with those involved, blight,” to the more positive intention including other BIDs along Crossrail to harness the investment opportunity routes (see Section 11). from Crossrail 2 to enhance the town

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 35 11 SUPPORT FOR BIDS IN LONDON

The Mayor and the London Enterprise as continuing to support existing BIDs. Nevertheless, the 50 BID milestone is Panel (LEP) have strongly endorsed the This section considers the impact of a good moment for the GLA and LEP concept of BIDs and their role in the the grant programme and how invest- and their partners to reflect on how to place-shaping of town centres across ment under a new mayoralty could increase BIDs’ collaborative impact, the capital. In his 2012 manifesto, further develop BIDs’ work as local rather than necessarily continuing Boris Johnson committed to “support partners in the economic development to incentivise the setting up of more the creation of further BIDs, work- of London. BIDs. ing with boroughs and businesses to double the number to 50 in the next Although London contains nearly As this review has highlighted, there four years, focusing on town centres 25% of BIDs in England, this does are examples of successful smaller such as Bromley, Enfield, Richmond not mean it has reached saturation. BIDs operating largely autonomously and Romford.”65 Several of the 14 boroughs without a and with modest amounts of levy BID are considering their feasibility, income. However, the cuts, levies and To achieve this objective and take particularly ones with ambitious local funding policies mentioned throughout forward the recommendations of the economic growth strategies, such as may quell the appetite for more BIDs. GLA’s subsequent review of London Haringey, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets This strengthens the case for switching BIDs,66 the LEP committed £660,000 and Wandsworth. the focus of future support to enabling to enable the establishment of new the work of existing BIDs. Business Improvement Districts, as well

11.1 Convening

The GLA/LEP’s engagement with the Since 2012, the GLA, supported by Mayor for Business and Enterprise. capital’s BIDs has largely contin- a steering group including 12 BIDs, Several BID chief executives com- ued what started under the London has convened regular network meet- mented on the value of this, but rec- Development Agency (LDA). Having ings to showcase BID work. This has ognised they also have to engage invested in the Circle Initiative,67 the included twice-yearly meetings open with other directorates and parts of pilot UK BIDs programme, the LDA to all London BIDs, local authorities the GLA family. subsequently supported a London and other stakeholders, including BIDs platform to enable networking TfL and the Metropolitan police. and sharing of best practice. From 2012-15 these were chaired by Kit Malthouse AM, then Deputy

11.2 Grants and loans

Since 2014, the London Enterprise The GLA has also required 50% ful emphasis on quantity over quality Panel has provided £660,000 largely match-funding as an indication of of new BIDs. to support the setting up of new BIDs. local support from the council and/ Grants of £30,000 per applicant or business community. By February The Department for Communities have been based on research sug- 2016, the LEP had funded 16 new and Local Government also has a gesting that initial BID set-up costs are BIDs (of which 10 have already bal- £500,000 fund, administered by Brit- in the range of £60-100,000. A BID loted successfully). ish BIDs, which loans up to £50,000 sponsor has to be less than 12 months to help set up new BIDs. To date only from a ballot and able to show evi- In the main, interviewees and survey two London BIDs have applied for a dence of: respondents had positive views of the loan; however, this could remain a grant programme (see Figure 17), useful alternative source for start-up • stakeholder engagement although some said future resources BIDs in the capital, should GLA/LEP might be better spent consolidating funding be focused elsewhere. • community support what has been achieved now that • communication with TfL and the the Mayor’s 50-BID target has been Mayor’s Office for Police and reached. Indeed, some experienced Crime BID practitioners also questioned whether the push to reach 50 by • project management experience spring 2016 may have put an unhelp-

36 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts How helpful was Fig.17:GLA/LEP BIDs support? reporting on the usefulness of GLA/LEP resources

5

4

3

2

1

0 Handbook Grant Legal templates

1 - low 2 3 4 5 - high

Source: Survey.

11.3 Legal templates and handbook

In tandem with the grants pro- However, not all BIDs were aware gramme, the GLA commissioned they existed, and some interview- a law firm to review and update ees thought that the GLA BIDs web a set of legal templates for use by page could be used to promote live BIDs.68 It also had an experienced case studies and examples of good BID management company produce practice. a handbook on setting up and running a BID.69 Again, the survey of BIDs showed strong approval of these documents (see Figure 17).

11.4 Regeneration funding

Several London BIDs have worked tions submitted by local authorities, For the 2015 London Regeneration with the GLA’s Regeneration team, including Bromley (Orpington First) Fund, BIDs were invited to submit with its strong focus on town centre and Camden (Camden Town Unlim- applications themselves. Of the 69 and high street regeneration. BIDs ited), both featured in this report.70 applications, five were from BIDs were not eligible to apply directly Waterloo Quarter (since rebranded but none were successful. BID chief for the 2011-12 Outer London Fund as We Are Waterloo) also received executives have suggested that more or the 2015 High Street Fund, but funding through Lambeth council’s dialogue with GLA officers and some received funding from applica- Portas Pilot grant.71 feedback on unsuccessful applica-

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 37 tions would be useful, particularly though not specific to BIDs, does as BIDs become more ambitious address some of the issues raised and look to access new sources of by interviewees, which suggests income. The GLA’s good practice that the information could be more guide to applying for funding,72 widely disseminated.

11.5 Future support

BIDs’ increasing diversification seems private and voluntary sector partners the GLA to provide greater strategic to call for greater segmentation of the and assembling the necessary fund- coordination to this array of corporate sector, enabling BIDs to collaborate ing. social responsibility. on different priorities and issues. There is also an emerging case for The GLA and TfL have an opportunity Crossrail BID groups to be linked to sub-region- to prioritise projects which bring BIDs TfL has been working with several al devolution proposals, particularly together. The Low Line proposal is BIDs as conduits for communicating 73 if this increases the level of business one example. Another is harnessing with businesses and local communi- involvement in these partnerships. the regeneration opportunities and ties to mitigate the disruption from the sharing experience from the redevel- construction work on Crossrail and the This research has identified a number opment of mainline stations which likely impact of Crossrail 2. The Cross- of potential pilot projects on which currently preoccupies several BIDs, rail projects provide another focus BIDs could collaborate over the next including Team London Bridge, South around which to develop collabora- 12-24 months, with a view to increas- Bank BID, We Are Waterloo, Euston tion between existing BIDs, as well as ing the scale and impact of a particu- and Victoria BID. A number of these with BIDs which may now emerge at lar initiative and addressing current BIDs have said how, in contrast to town centres which will be linked and priorities for London and the incoming their relationship with TfL, it has been redeveloped as a result of Crossrail. mayor. difficult to engage Network Rail as a partner; with the mayor’s increasing Financial innovation and new Employment and training influence over national rail services local investment funds A number of London’s BIDs are within the capital, now may be the As government grant funding for lo- already involved in local employment chance. cal economic development becomes initiatives, brokering jobs and training increasingly competitive, more ambi- Corporate Social Responsibility opportunities with member companies tious BIDs may look to pilot alterna- and employers in their area for local BIDs also broker engagements be- tive financial instruments, such as residents and unemployed jobseek- tween members and local voluntary local area investment funds or social ers. Some of these, such as Employ and community-based organisations. impact bonds, in order to maximise SE1 and Recruit London (see Box 5), These include fundraising, mentor- their leverage over alternative sources are joint programmes across several ing, in-kind resources and employee of investment. This will have implica- BIDs. With the government’s focus on volunteering. These often operate tions for the skills and capacity of BID driving up apprenticeships, and the in isolation, at a time when there is management teams, as well as the ap- mayor and London Councils’ pushing growing interest from funders such as petite for risk among BID boards, but for more influence over employment City Bridge, Big Lottery and the GLA it may be something which the GLA and skills funding for the capital, (through Team London) in providing and participating boroughs would be there is a window of opportunity to strategic-level support and coordina- willing to support and, if necessary, engage a group of BIDs in the design tion to maximise place-based giving. underwrite. and delivery of more business-facing London’s Giving, building on the employment services targeting particu- Islington Giving pilot, is looking to lar areas and sectors of the capital. support place-based giving initia- tives in the following areas, several of Regeneration which have a BID: Kingston, Camden, Several BIDs have shown their ability Hammersmith, Twickenham, Sutton to be a catalyst for urban regenera- and Southwark. London’s designation tion, articulating a strong business as European City of Volunteering case, convening appropriate public/ for 201674 is an added incentive for

38 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 12 CASE STUDY Orpington First: the BID as innovator and catalyst

Established 2013

Businesses 320

Staff 5

Levy £151,000 income

Additional £127,775 income (Local government (source,value) £12,775; High Street Fund £25,000; New Homes Bonus £50,000; spon- sorship £10,000; promotional space and events £15,000; sub- letting property £15,000).

12.1 Background

Orpington First is a relatively small tenth that of London’s largest BIDs, The BID’s mission to help create a outer London BID, which evolved has had considerably more opportu- vibrant and commercially viable town from the Orpington Business Forum, nity than its predecessor to influence centre. By working with partners established in 2007. The forum, with place-making and local services. to find appropriate solutions to the a voluntary membership of around Situated at the edge of London, and challenges facing Orpington, the 50 local businesses, helped Brom- of the borough of Bromley, Orpington BID ensures that its activity is add- ley council develop strategy and First has developed a dual-facing role ing value to levy payers’ businesses, ideas to benefit the town centre. The as the London–Kent gateway: one of whilst securing additional resources emergence of Orpington First is an the capital’s town centres, but also to invest in opportunities that deliver example of how even a small BID, accessible to Kent for tourism and as wider community economic benefit. with an annual levy income about a a market for Kent produce.

12.2 Impact and value

The BID’s chief executive is an experi- One of the four priorities of the BID’s longer in the high street and facilitates enced regeneration practitioner and is business plan is to make Orpington day-to-day communication with the ambitious for the BID to do more than First “first for business”. As part of BID team. provide proficient town centre man- this, the BID has developed an enter- agement services. She appreciates prise hub by subletting its high-street The enterprise hub led to the BID part- that in the current economic climate, offices as affordable, flexible work- nering the council to secure GLA High the BID must deliver more than hang- space, with conference and training Street Fund and New Homes Bonus ing baskets and Christmas lights if the facilities. funding for a programme of business town centre is to thrive. Orpington has training and development. Orpington suffered from the impact of out-of-town The BID’s offices also serve as rest First is the delivery partner of the Start 75 shopping centres, including Nugent facilities for a new town centre police Up, Step Up & Grow programme (less than a mile away) and Bluewa- team, which the BID lobbied for and aimed at would-be entrepreneurs, ter, and the BID has had to identify to which it contributes financially. In including women returning to work innovative ways to revitalise the town the absence of a town police station, after maternity leave, offering risk-free centre and ensure its sustainability. this space means the team can stay opportunities to test business ideas in

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 39 the town’s market, where the BID has The regeneration of the market also telecoms and waste management. This a stall. included the BID’s taking over man- has been well-received and there are agement of the public toilets from the already members who have covered The BID has been at the heart of council in 2014. The toilets received a their BID levy with the savings. efforts to revitalise the town as a shop- complete renovation, including baby ping destination and has engaged care facilities, plantings and notice Orpington First reports annually on businesses, developers and landown- boards. Maintaining high standards performance. The chief executive ad- ers in efforts to revitalise the three- has become a challenge; the Walnuts mits that the BID could be better at re- day-a-week outdoor market. shopping centre contributes 50% to porting, and that standard indicators the cost of cleaning, and advertising do not tell the full story, which – as The BID is also working with Bromley provides additional revenue. in many BID areas – includes helping college to develop an enterprise hub existing businesses benefit from town at its Orpington campus, enhancing The BID also engaged procurement centre regeneration, including an the local food offer by connecting col- specialists to help members save eight-storey housing development and lege catering (including a student-run on group buying of items such as new cinema. bakery and restaurant) to the market. business supplies, services, utilities,

12.3 Relationship with the local authority

There is plenty of political will from footfall in the town centre. The council Orpington to identify inward invest- the council for BIDs in Bromley to is involved in BID strategy and project ment opportunities whilst managing support the regeneration and manage- development, through a senior officer impacts, including those of permitted ment of the borough’s town centres. and councillor’s observer status at development rights. This has resulted in significant resourc- board meetings. At the same time, es (both financial and staffing) being the council is fully aware of the BID’s Managing the transfer of the public dedicated to setting up the BID and status as an independent organisation toilets has encouraged the BID to look an ongoing commitment to contribut- and the importance of treating it as at other assets, including possible ing as levy payer and partner. As such. uses for the Priory, a Grade II-listed well as Orpington, Your Bromley BID building which used to house the town had a successful ballot in November This is clearly a delicate balance museum and library. A petition with 2015, and the council is investigat- to strike. The BID sees the relation- nearly 1,200 signatures indicated ing the feasibility for further BIDs in ship with the council as “something community opposition to its sale, and Beckenham and Penge. of a missed opportunity”, which it encouraged the BID to help galvanise attributes in part to council budget a Friends’ Group to nominate the In partnership with the BID and other cuts. However, the council has made Priory an asset of community value. stakeholders, the council is now lead- efforts to support the BID, and con- This gave the community six months’ ing in Walnuts Square public realm tributed funds from several pots to grace to develop alternatives for the improvements. This follows a £2.1m help advance its ambitions. Current Priory, possibly as a self-sustaining council investment in a scheme to collaborations include engaging cultural venue. upgrade public realm and relocate members, developers and landowners the library, which has increased to establish a planning strategy for

12.4 Lessons

Food is seen by the BID as an oppor- The BID’s role in saving or repurpos- revitalising and managing the bor- tunity nexus for Orpington, wherein ing community assets has shifted ough’s town centres. The Orpington local restaurants provide work experi- efforts to save local amenities from a First team is confident that having po- ence for college hospitality and cater- campaign footing to a business-led sitioned the first BID in the borough as ing students, and in turn have a ready approach dedicated to finding com- a connector of “business to business,” supply of emergency staff cover, both mercially viable solutions. “business to the local authority” and in kitchens and front of house. The BID “business to the community”, it is well- has also introduced a food festival The recent establishment of the larger placed to collaborate – rather than and ‘Foodie Friday’ to showcase Bromley BID signals that the council compete – with other areas across the what’s on offer. sees BIDs as a useful partner for both borough.

40 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 13 RECOMMENDATIONS

Quick wins

GLA: GLA directorates and project as transparency, consistency, • Continue to provide non-financial areas avoidance of conflicts of interest support (materials, officer advice, • Encourage BIDs and boroughs • Set up piggybacking and introductions, grant application to collaborate on funding mentoring relationships between guidance) to new and prospective applications established and new BIDs BIDs • Convene a group to share • Make time to attend BID network • Continue to offer start-up grants experience and best practice meetings and prioritise BIDs in boroughs on BIDs’ engagement in Boroughs: without a BID and/or areas which Neighbourhood Planning would clearly benefit from one • Talk with BIDs about providing • Lobby/discuss with DCLG how to services before they become • Ensure that new and existing BIDs avoid BID board members gaining vulnerable to cuts are aware of GLA resources, unfair commercial advantage in including the legal templates Neighbourhood Planning process • Set up regular forums for BIDs within a borough to discuss • Commission an updated version BIDs: shared interests, joint purchasing of the BIDs Handbook to provide • Engage with boroughs regularly. and other efficiencies stronger guidance on governance Request a seat at the table • Establish BID’s main point of when policy matters are being • Help BIDs promote themselves contact and ensure regular discussed, eg business rates better, eg develop a case study dialogue; allow officer time bank promoting examples of devolution and taxes. • Use BIDs as a conduit to seek collaboration and innovation • Follow and share principles views of businesses and as a of good governance, such • Help BIDs engage more with all partner on consultations

Long-term

GLA: BIDs: Boroughs: • Encourage the creation of a risk • Increase professional development • Explore fiscal mechanisms that register which identifies possible for boards and staff, including nurture local businesses, eg threats to all parties, and make using existing learning and late night levy discounts or this available in the GLA BIDs development programmes exemptions, SME business rates Handbook relief • Increase joint commissioning of • In collaboration with BIDs, trial a services and sharing of back- • Integrate BIDs into town centre user-friendly impact assessment office resources and professional strategies toolkit to measure social return expertise • Engage with BIDs to review on investment, and encourage • Explore links with relevant baseline agreements together consistent data-gathering from the European city/BID networks regularly, to anticipate changes beginning of a BID’s lifecycle and apply for relevant EU grant and manage expectations • Develop a space for reporting BID funding, eg through Access • Include BIDs in the development performance/impact data within Europe of service delivery plans the London data store • Develop BIDs’ collective voice as • Include BIDs in any relevant work • Establish a pool of freelance or a vital business lobby, in a similar of multi-borough or sub-regional seconded staff (akin to the GLA way to BIDs’ lobbying on behalf growth partnerships regeneration team’s Specialist of northern city-regions Assistance Team or the defunct • Continue to support organisations CABE enabling panel) that which facilitate BID/LA BIDs can tap into for mayoral collaborations priority areas such as air quality, employment and skills

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 41 14 CONCLUSION

As an industry, London’s Business third term – are already balancing and ATCM and groups such as Cross Improvement Districts are still emerg- private-sector priorities with effective River Partnership, should be combined ing. Some have become agents of relationships with host boroughs and and harnessed to safeguard London’s economic growth and influence while local communities. This research has interests. newer and smaller ones may have shown that ongoing and sometimes to prove their value to members to more formal dialogue can deliver real London’s reaching 50 BIDs (nearly a survive business rates reform. It is a benefit to all parties. quarter of the UK total) does not mean staggered field in which leading BIDs, the capital has reached saturation. trade bodies, partnerships and the There are challenges, of course. A BID The GLA and LEP could encourage GLA and LEP are working to bring is an independent entity which must ‘BID-poor’ parts of London to develop along the whole – and there is poten- first meet the needs of its business viable BIDs. Wandsworth, Lewisham, tial to do much more. members. Community groups are ap- Tower Hamlets and Haringey are all prehensive about BIDs’ commercial in- considering BIDs, and all councils This research has highlighted the fluence over neighbourhood planning. should assess where one could help growing number of BIDs of all sizes The added cost of revalued business meet local needs. Reaching the 50- having a significant effect on – and rates and additional levies could sap BID target is testament to Mayoral beyond – their areas, bringing in vital members’ willingness to renew BID and GLA support, which has acceler- investment and forging useful partner- mandates. In terms of service delivery, ated the number of BIDs since 2012. ships with the public and voluntary this research has heard caution on This is also a good moment for the sectors. In addition to their traditional both sides: BIDs are not keen to be- GLA and LEP to consider devoting a ‘bins, banners and baskets’ remit, come default council delivery bodies, greater share of funding toward the BIDs are now directly involved in re- and voters can balk at transferring health and potential of existing BIDs, generation, placemaking, air quality control to the private sector. Dialogue, notably to promote best practice and and employment initiatives. as mentioned above, is the key, along explore cross-sector and sub-regional with greater transparency and an partnerships for project delivery, cost- The 50-BID milestone is a fitting time industry-wide commitment to profes- savings and a more coherent London to shift gears. BIDs’ secure five-year sionalism. BID voice. revenue stream, flexible structure and government support are combined These challenges are also the place In an increasingly competitive fund- with local expertise and the practi- to use and strengthen BIDs’ influence ing landscape, BIDs will need to work cal focus required to serve business as a collective voice for London busi- together and with local authorities to members. This affords them a unique ness – including the consumer draws secure their status as credible, inte- ability to innovate and make tangible of retail, tourism and leisure, which grated partners for the long term. It improvements at a time when local must be heard alongside financial will take all parties to drive the whole government is struggling to deliver services, property and tech. Many BID industry forward, but the potential for basic services. members have the ear of government London is enormous, and the time to leaders, and that lobbying weight, act is now. Many mature BIDs – particularly those bolstered by trade bodies British BIDs approaching or already into their

42 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts APPENDIX 1: SCOPE

The scope of this research was to look at high London’s seven industrial BIDs were outside the street and town centre BIDs in London. As of scope of this report. October 2015 when the research was commis- 1. Argall BID sioned, there were 36 BIDs within the scope: 2. Beddington BID 1. Angel BID 3. Garratt Business Park 2. Baker Street Quarter Partnership 4. Hainault Business Park 3. Better Bankside 5. Kimpton Industrial Park 4. Bexleyheath BID 6. London Riverside BID 5. Blue Bermondsey 7. Willow Lane 6. Brixton BID 7. Camden Town Unlimited Also outside the scope are the three property- 8. Cheapside owner BIDs: 9. Clapham Business Community 1. Heart of London Business Alliance – Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus 10. Croydon BID 2. Heart of London Business Alliance – 11. E11 BID Piccadilly and St James 12. Ealing Broadway BID 3. New West End Company 13. Hammersmith London Four BIDs held successful ballots after the start of 14. Harrow Town Centre this research: 15. HOLBA - Piccadilly and St James 1. Bromley (LB Bromley) 16. HOLBA - Leicester Square to Piccadilly 2. Euston (LB Camden) 17. Ilford BID 3. Marble Arch () 18. Inmidtown 4. Purley (LB Croydon) 19. Kingston First 20. Love Wimbledon 21. New Addington BID 22. New West End Company 23. Northbank 24. Orpington First 25. Paddington Now 26. South Bank BID 27. Stratford Renaissance Partnership 28. Streatham BID 29. Successful Sutton 30. Team London Bridge 31. The Fitzrovia Partnership 32. Try Twickenham 33. Vauxhall One 34. Victoria BID 35. We Are Waterloo 36. West Ealing

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 43 AppendiAPPENDIXX 2:2: dDATAATA 0.9% 2.0% 8.4% 4.3% 1.0% 8.9% 5.3% 1.7% 0.9% 4.4% 1.3% 2.1% 6.5% 2.5% 3.8% 3.4% 4.0% 2.3% 7.7% 1.1% 4.5% 2.7% 4.0% 8.7% 5.9% 1.9% 3.9% 2.9% -1.6% -0.8% -0.5% -1.2% 10.6% 23.8% 16.1% 3.48% -25.4% CAGR er p/h Turnov 8.7% 9.5% 8.6% % -6.6% -4.7% 19.6% 46.0% 58.9% 16.1% 47.4% 12.3% 20.7% 75.9% 25.1% 40.3% 35.6% 42.7% 23.2% 94.9% 10.5% 48.0% 27.4% 42.4% 68.1% 18.3% 41.6% 29.0% -13.7% -92.9% -10.5% 106.6% 116.0% 147.2% 112.3% 582.4% 283.4% 57.26% er p/h Turnov change 2.3% 6.3% 3.2% 1.6% 4.5% 5.1% 4.3% 0.3% 5.9% 2.1% 1.9% 7.1% 1.9% 6.0% 4.3% 3.0% 1.3% 8.4% 0.6% 4.2% 3.5% 5.3% 0.6% 7.1% 6.8% 2.4% 3.9% 3.1% er -0.8% -0.1% -1.8% 11.6% 10.7% 25.4% 10.0% 3.59% -29.6% CAGR Turnov 2.5% 5.2% 5.8% -7.3% -1.1% 22.4% 73.5% 32.7% 15.7% 48.4% 57.0% 46.3% 66.9% 21.1% 18.0% 85.0% 18.1% 68.4% 45.9% 30.8% 12.7% 44.7% 35.8% 59.2% 85.7% 81.5% 23.9% 41.3% 31.6% -15.0% -95.8% er % 169.4% 106.9% 148.6% 669.5% 135.7% 59.99% Turnov change 0.2% 0.6% 2.6% 1.4% 0.8% 0.6% 1.5% 1.0% 2.1% 0.8% 0.7% 1.1% 3.0% 4.7% 0.8% 3.0% 1.8% 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% -1.8% -1.9% -1.1% -4.1% -0.1% -0.6% -0.3% -0.6% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -5.6% -2.0% -5.3% 0.08% ment CAGR Employ TBR data buffers - TBR 2.3% 5.7% 7.9% 5.2% 9.0% 7.7% 6.2% 7.5% 8.0% 4.7% 2.0% -9.1% -1.2% -5.6% -2.3% -5.6% -9.0% -8.3% -8.5% -0.2% 26.0% 13.3% 14.5% 20.1% 10.4% 30.9% 51.7% 30.4% 17.1% 12.8% 2.31% -14.7% -16.0% -31.3% -40.7% -16.9% -38.5% change Employ ment % 1.6% 0.8% 4.5% 0.4% 2.1% 2.8% 2.1% 3.6% 3.0% 1.4% 5.2% 1.5% 0.1% 2.5% 1.8% 2.9% 2.9% 3.4% 0.6% 5.1% 0.8% 1.8% 1.4% 2.0% 3.5% 5.0% 3.1% 2.6% 4.5% 4.3% 2.1% 0.8% 1.1% 1.7% 2.0% 2.6% 2.36% Firms CAGR 7.4% 3.4% 1.2% 5.6% 7.4% 7.1% 15.4% 49.2% 20.2% 28.2% 20.4% 36.9% 30.2% 12.8% 57.3% 13.9% 24.7% 17.7% 29.1% 29.8% 34.6% 56.7% 17.1% 13.6% 19.7% 36.7% 55.2% 32.0% 26.5% 48.4% 45.4% 20.3% 10.6% 16.2% 19.8% 25.6% 24.19% change Firms % 3.35% 3.57% 5.07% 6.04% 2.32% 3.29% 6.86% 2.57% 2.85% 4.19% 2.13% 4.55% 1.49% 3.39% 1.10% 0.79% 2.72% 6.15% 6.21% 3.03% 4.42% 0.90% 4.52% 6.18% 9.45% 3.40% 1.98% 3.05% -1.54% -0.62% -0.07% -2.86% -8.95% -2.25% -0.73% 12.38% 13.92% CAGR er p/h Turnov 7.32% 8.40% -5.45% -0.63% -6.40% 34.57% 37.12% 56.04% 69.50% 22.91% 33.78% 81.73% 25.69% 28.79% 44.63% 20.93% 49.25% 14.19% 34.95% 10.30% 27.30% 71.05% 72.05% 30.79% 47.55% 48.91% 71.62% 35.05% 19.26% 38.74% -13.05% -22.95% -57.01% -18.52% p/h % 185.87% 223.03% 125.33% change Turnover Turnover 3.75% 3.92% 7.75% 4.92% 1.92% 4.91% 3.11% 2.02% 6.75% 2.01% 4.73% 0.58% 3.38% 2.73% 2.76% 1.89% 7.05% 0.90% 6.25% 2.89% 4.62% 1.63% 5.33% 5.09% 2.15% 2.31% 6.55% 1.92% 3.76% -3.93% -1.07% -0.48% 11.46% 14.67% 12.60% 10.54% -10.20% r CAGR Turnove % 5.30% 8.38% -9.24% -4.23% 39.23% 41.36% 95.81% 54.05% 18.62% 53.88% 31.72% 19.74% 80.07% 19.62% 51.61% 34.86% 27.42% 27.80% 18.38% 84.59% 72.56% 29.18% 50.21% 15.71% 59.54% 56.40% 21.14% 22.78% 76.95% 18.67% 48.80% -30.31% -62.02% 165.55% 242.88% 190.91% 146.43% change Turnover Turnover 0.38% 0.34% 2.55% 1.57% 4.30% 0.52% 2.46% 2.04% 0.17% 1.62% 1.96% 0.85% 1.53% 0.03% 5.91% 1.55% 0.73% 7.75% 0.55% 3.06% 1.00% 3.05% 0.71% TBR data BIDs - TBR -2.43% -1.06% -0.39% -0.81% -0.12% -0.90% -0.01% -0.80% -1.16% -1.00% -1.37% -4.69% -3.80% -0.05% ment CAGR Employ 3.46% 3.09% 4.80% 1.58% 7.91% 0.30% 6.74% 5.03% 9.37% 8.69% -9.11% -3.49% -7.03% -1.09% -7.78% -0.07% -7.01% -9.94% -8.67% -0.49% 25.49% 15.03% 46.13% 24.50% 19.95% 15.52% 19.09% 14.62% 67.67% 14.85% 95.81% 31.18% 31.03% -19.85% -11.65% -35.09% -29.41% Employ change ment % 2.35% 2.87% 3.22% 3.37% 2.30% 1.87% 5.64% 2.41% 2.92% 1.37% 2.72% 4.32% 5.78% 2.14% 1.45% 4.37% 2.87% 1.72% 2.52% 1.62% 2.54% 1.96% 0.76% 2.53% 3.10% 3.81% 1.73% 5.05% 3.26% 0.91% 2.85% 1.65% 3.72% 1.47% 2.54% -0.03% -0.16% Firms CAGR 7.02% 8.48% -0.30% -1.45% 23.29% 29.01% 33.05% 34.72% 22.71% 18.11% 63.82% 23.91% 29.61% 13.02% 27.31% 46.33% 65.86% 20.96% 13.80% 47.00% 29.03% 16.62% 25.11% 15.52% 25.29% 19.08% 25.16% 31.60% 40.04% 16.72% 55.80% 33.42% 28.83% 15.89% 38.88% 14.04% 26.20% change Firms % 66 420 175 578 362 290 656 307 360 586 270 470 365 205 205 179 395 600 950 428 420 317 350 358 184 248 624 490 397 227 450 177 266 551 331 368 13257 Heredit aments £67,000 £20,000 £430,000 £270,000 £102,000 £335,000 £670,000 £350,596 £220,000 £961,155 £405,000 £729,000 £309,950 £892,000 £740,000 £328,000 £882,529 £438,576 £210,750 £536,143 £487,880 £232,000 £230,000 £325,000 £972,872 £925,000 £260,000 £689,575 £473,607 £143,427 £704,481 Income British BIDs data £1,050,000 £1,273,503 £2,200,000 £3,618,000 £1,600,000 £1,982,749 £25,361,312 2007 2013 2005 2011 2014 2013 2006 2015 2014 2007 2007 2011 2006 2013 2012 2005 2009 2005 2005 2012 2013 2005 2013 2013 2005 2014 2015 2013 2012 2005 2012 2013 2012 2010 2011 2014 hed Establis Borough Islington Westminster Southwark Bexley Southwark Lambeth Camden London of City Lambeth Croydon Forest Waltham Ealing Fulham & Hammersmith Harrow Westminster Westminster Redbridge Camden Kingston Merton Croydon Westminster Westminster Bromley Westminster Lambeth Newham Lambeth Sutton Southwark Camden Richmond Lambeth Westminster Lambeth/Southwark Ealing (Leytonstone) - Leicester Square to Piccadilly Name

Angel BID Baker Street Quarter Partnership Better Bankside Bexleyheath BID Blue Bermondsey BID Brixton Camden Town Unlimited Cheapside Community Business Clapham BID Croydon BIDE11 BID Broadway Ealing London Hammersmith Harrow Town Centre James St and Piccadilly - HOLBA HOLBA Ilford BID Inmidtown First Kingston Wimbledon Love Addington New Company End West New Northbank BID Orpington Now Paddington South Bank BID Partnership Renaissance Stratford Streatham BID Successful Sutton Bridge London Team Partnership Fitzrovia The Twickenham Try Vauxhall One BID Victoria We Are Waterloo West Ealing AVERAGE TOTAL

4444 TheThe EvolutionEvolution ofof London’sLondon’s BusinessBusiness ImprovementImprovement DistrictsDistricts ENDNOTES

1. London Assembly Regeneration Committee work programme http://bit.ly/1Fnroua 2. These figures relate to the 36 high street and town centre BIDs within the scope of this research. See Appendix for further information. Data sources: TBR, British BIDs and survey responses. 3. The Local Government Act 2003, http://bit.ly/1Fnroua 4. Ian Cook, Policing, Partnerships, and Profits, Urban Geography http://bit.ly/20VNuDA 5. At end of February 2016 and this report’s publication, there were 48 BIDs in London, 36 fall within the scope of this research; seven of the 48 are Industrial BIDs and five were established after the research was commissioned in October 2015 (Bromley, Euston, Marble Arch, Purley and NWEC property BID). A separate piece of research has been commissioned by the GLA to explore the impact and potential of Industrial BIDs in London. 6. The 2014 data was sourced from Trends Business Research Ltd (TBR). The 2012 data, also sourced by TBR, is taken from the 2012 GLA-commissioned report on BIDs. 7. Additional income data is from the 2015 British BIDs’ survey data for 31 of the 36 BIDs covered here. British BIDs define additional income as “the amount in cash £s received into your BID bank account … over and above the BID levy”. Data for the other five BIDs (Bexleyheath BID, Orpington First, New Addington, Brixton BID and Cheapside BID) was from our survey. 2012 data is from the 2012 GLA-commissioned report on BIDs. 8. Local Government Association, Future Funding Outlook for Councils from 2010-11 to 2019-20, http://bit.ly/1RFPGsW 9. Institute for Fiscal Studies, Sharpest cuts to local government spending in poorer areas; same areas likely to lose most in next few years, http://bit.ly/1TiLdMH 10. This figure was gathered from the 2012 report on BIDs in London commissioned by the GLA. There were 21 respondents to this question in their survey. 11. This figure was gathered from our 2015 survey. 11 out of the 28 BIDs who responded to this question said that they deliver services on behalf of the council. 12. ‘Additionality’ refers to the idea that BIDs should provide services that are additional to those provided by the local authority and not replace existing public sector services. 13. 22 BIDs responded to this question in our 2015 survey. 14. Against Business Improvement Districts http://bit.ly/1Wn8sof 15. HM Government, Spending Review and Autumn Statement, http://bit.ly/1R4l0iW 16. HM Treasury, Chancellor unveils devolution revolution, http://bit.ly/1PWOsIR 17. London Councils, Spending Review 2015: London Councils’ Submission to HM Treasury, http://bit.ly/1U3cBzc 18. , Local councils warn of critical funding crisis as £18bn grant is stopped, http://bit.ly/1oDC4mL 19. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Local State We’re In, http://pwc.to/214vbca 20. Regeneris, Business Rates: Who pays and why it matters? http://bit.ly/1Wn8MU3; Greg Clark MP, Oral statement to Parliament, http://bit.ly/1R60VZv 21. http://bit.ly/1oDC4mL 22. HM Treasury, Business Rates Review: terms of reference and discussion paper, http://bit.ly/1Cprun0 23. ATCM, Manifesto for London’s Town Centres, http://bit.ly/1RQhV8o 24. Outlaw, Business rates structural review will be ‘fiscally neutral’, says UK Treasury, http://bit.ly/1wZfkR1 25. BNP Paribas, London businesses set to be biggest losers in 2017 business rates revaluation, http://bit.ly/1ObG9Dr 26. GLA, Crossrail Funding Prospectus, http://bit.ly/1ogrOQU 27. London First, Funding Crossrail 2, http://bit.ly/1kquYOX 28. Department for Busienss, Innovation and Skills, Apprenticeship levy: employer owned apprenticeships training http:// bit.ly/20VOibF 29. Kevin Ward and Ian Cook, Business Improvement Districts in the UK: Territorialising a ‘global’ model? http://bit. ly/1SB2HVL 30. Green Party, http://bit.ly/1Tl4Gwj 31. London Assembly Regeneration Committee, http://bit.ly/1XzxVw6 32. RIBA, http://bit.ly/1QGgqEy 33. Baker Street Quarter Partnership, http://bit.ly/1Tsau8v 34. Bermondsey Community Kitchen, http://bit.ly/1TlceR1 35. Angel London, http://bit.ly/1KkOF8h 36. Employ SE1, http://bit.ly/1XsZ6Zg

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 45 37. Better Bankside, http://bit.ly/1XsZ7wl 38. BBC, Budget to propose longer Sunday trading hours, http://bbc.in/1KkOIko 39. Data from TBR. 40. Victoria BID, http://bit.ly/1SB4jPA 41. Cross River Partnership, http://bit.ly/20VOvLV 42. According to the Association of Public Service Excellence, ‘enabling’ implies “a minimal or residual role for local government, primarily a role which is founded in procurement and contract management.” APSE, The ensuring council: An alternative vision for the future of local government, http://bit.ly/1otapVR 43. Collaboration between London Business Improvement Districts (internal document produced by the BIDs for the GLA- convened BIDs group) 44. West End Partnership, http://bit.ly/20W6EcG 45. Simon Pitkeathley, The new kids on the municipal block, Public Finance, http://bit.ly/1KRsO8x 46. South Bank Partnership Manifesto, http://bit.ly/1VgyVnm 47. SBEG is a not for profit service-delivery organisation; South Bank Partnership is a high-level strategic network that meets quarterly. 48. South Bank London, http://bit.ly/1oDCTfd 49. Waterloo Jobshop, http://bit.ly/1Vgz3TO 50. London Assembly Economy Committee, Fair Pay: Making the London Living Wage the norm, http://bit.ly/214vUdj 51. London Assembly Economy Committee, Fair Pay: Making the London Living Wage the norm, http://bit.ly/214vUdj 52. Department for Communities and Local Government, Government Review of Business Improvement Districts, http://bit. ly/1PMrsbM 53. British BIDs Nationwide BID Survey 2014, http://bit.ly/1PSVElz 54. GLA/The Means, BIDs Handbook, http://bit.ly/1Pzp2PX 55. Financial Reporting Council, UK Corporate Governance Code, http://bit.ly/1U9Vnjy 56. British BIDs, http://bit.ly/1oG1TCw 57. British BIDs, http://bit.ly/1U9Vnjy 58. This data was sourced from the British BIDs 2015 survey data. Thirty-one London BIDs responded to this question in the survey. 59. This data was sourced from the British BIDs 2015 survey data and so represents the 31 BIDs who responded to the survey. 60. British BIDs, Industry Criteria Guidance for BIDs 2015 revision, http://bit.ly/1PSWuyY 61. The drop in the local authority representation is likely to be accounted for by the change in policy of Westminster council – see Section 9.6 62. There are 489 businesses on BID boards. This figure is from British BIDs data and our survey, and represents all 36 BIDs. 63. Future Wimbledon, http://bit.ly/20ySw3o 64. Future Wimbledon, http://bit.ly/20VPagt 65. Boris Johnson, Growing the London Economy, http://bit.ly/1SU4aHp 66. London’s Business Improvement Districts, Shared Intelligence and the Association of Town and City Management, http://bit.ly/210LzxE 67. 24 Dash, London BID initiative attracts £14m investment from public and private sectors, http://bit.ly/1XzAaiW 68. , Tools for BIDs, http://bit.ly/1Pzp2PX 69. Greater London Authority/The Means, BIDs Handbook, http://bit.ly/1U65cik 70. GLA, Outer London Fund successful projects, http://bit.ly/1PWPx3m, GLA, London Regeneration Fund, http://bit. ly/2455f2n 71. We Are Waterloo, Successful Portas Pilot comes to an end, http://bit.ly/1oMjokI 72. GLA, Regeneration guides, http://bit.ly/1QGwK8G 73. Better Bankside, The Low Line, http://bit.ly/1XsZ7wl 74. GLA, London named Europe’s top city for volunteering, http://bit.ly/1KTtr1o 75. Orpington First, http://bit.ly/1KRtLxp

46 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Project team: Future of London: Alexei Schwab, Lisa Taylor, Jo Wilson Rocket Science: John Griffiths, Caroline Masundire, Hannah Rich Dataloft: Sandra Jones

With thanks to: Nadia Broccardo, Team London Bridge, Helen Clark Bell, Love Wimbledon, Helen Deakin, Transport for London, Maria Diaz-Palomares, GLA, Jane Harrison, London Councils, Nabeel Khan, GLA, Simon Pitkeathley, Camden Town Unlimited, Susannah Wilks, Cross River Partnership, Peter Williams, Better Bankside Penny Alexander, Baker Street Quarter Partnership, Sharon Baldwin, Orpington BID, Steve Carr, City of Westminster, Russell Dryden, Blue Bermondsey, Nic Durston, South Bank BID, Ruth Duston, Cheapside BID/Victoria BID/Northbank BID, Danny Edwards, LB Southwark, Genny Fernandez, LB Camden, Amy Gilham, Turley, Andy Godfrey, Boots, Dr Julie Grail, British BIDs, Richard Green, LB Bexley, Mark Holder, Department for Communities and Local Government, Ann Hunter, Ealing Broadway/West Ealing BID, Christine Lovett, Angel BID, Ojay McDonald, ATCM, James McGinlay, LB Merton, Ros Morgan, Kingston First, Martin Pinnell, LB Bromley, Sarah Porter, Heart of London Business Alliance, Lauren Preteceille, Transport for London, Dawn Redpath, LB Lambeth, Gianluca Rizzo, E11 (Leytonstone)/Stratford Original, Mark Ross, ATCM, Matthew Sims, Croydon BID, Jace Tyrell, New West End Company, Carl Welham, LB Hackney

The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts 47 NOTES

48 The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts

Rocket Science UK Ltd. Future of London 70 Cowcross Street 70 Cowcross Street London, London EC1M 6EJ EC1M 6EJ

 rocketsciencelab.co.uk futureoflondon.org.uk   @_RocketScience_ @futureofldn   Rocket Science UK Ltd Future of London 

© Future of London 2011 Ltd Future of London 2011 Ltd is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales (Reg. No. 7575624)