Issue - meetings

Ms Brightman addressed the committee as a member of the Mill Road Society and raised concern that city centres were being designed with purely shopping in mind. It was noted that the Mill Road Society were apposed to the Business Improvement District Project (BID) and it was questioned why local residents were not being classed as ‘stakeholders’.

 

Ms Brightman claimed that over 750 businesses would be affected but only a very small percentage had ever attended a meeting about the BID. The accountability and democracy of the BID was also questioned.

 

The Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources confirmed that there would be further opportunity to discuss the detail of the BID at a future meeting. It was acknowledged that all business did need to be aware of the BID project and there was a need for further resident involvement. The Executive Councillor took on board the points raised and emphasised that a Cambridge BID would not turn the City into a ‘clone town’.

 

Ms Banner responded and expressed further concern that parks and the River Cam were included in the BID and would result in the privatisation of the City’s open spaces.

 

The Head of Tourism and City Centre Management confirmed that it was not the intention of the City Council to privatise these areas but to enhance the experience for all users of the City.

 

It was noted that the BID would be a slow and thorough process that was reliant on the support of local residents. A key aim of a BID was to support diversity and the Cambridge BID would work closely with independent retailers.

 

The BID Development Manager reiterated that the aim of a BID was not to develop a ‘clone town’ but to give all business, including the many independents in Cambridge, a greater voice. It was noted that, as open spaces such as Parker’s Piece did not have a rateable value, they would not be affected by the BID.

 

Ms Banner addressed the committee and, as an independent retailer since 1985, expressed her support for the BID. It was noted that many of her fellow businesses also supported the BID as it was seen as a fairer system of funding improvements.

 

These comments were noted.

 

Matter for Decision: Proposal for the introduction of a Business Improvement District (BID) in Cambridge and the opportunities for increased investment in the management of the City Centre.

 

 Decision of the Executive Councillor:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

        i.            Arrange a Special Meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in September to discuss key issues relating to the BID project.

      ii.            Support the Council’s continued engagement in this project, pending a full report and recommendations coming to Committee.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Tourism and City Centre Management and the CBbid Development Manager.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report:

 

        i.            Expressed concern that the map of the proposed BID area included open spaces and the River Cam.

      ii.            Clarity was needed on the voting mechanism.

    iii.            Expressed concern that this was the first time that the committee had had an opportunity to scrutinise this project.

   iv.            Noted that, whilst the historic City Centre was important, its success should not be at the expense of other areas of the City.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Tourism and City Centre Management and the CBbid Development Manager confirmed the following:

 

        i.            The BID had no judicial powers.

      ii.            It was felt appropriate to include open spaces and the river in the BID area, as they were important parts of the city. However these concerns would be taken back to the Task Group for further discussion.

    iii.            The BID area had only been defined in May 2012 and this was therefore the first opportunity to bring the detail to the committee’s attention.

   iv.            The BID area had been based on feedback from retailers across the whole area, including Mill Road.

     v.            The voting system was fully explained in the 2004 guidance.

   vi.            The City Council had 13 votes, the University had 13 votes and the colleges had 19 votes.

 vii.            The main BID area would fund the overhead costs of any ‘satellite’ bid.

viii.            Experience in other areas has shown that large retailers were in favour of the main BID supporting any ‘satellite’ bid.

   ix.            In order to challenge or extend a ‘satellite’ BID area a re-ballot of the whole area would have to be taken.

     x.            Very few retailers in Mill Road had expressed an interest in the BID as they said that they did not see the benefit for their businesses.

 

The Executive Councillor agreed to arrange a Special Meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in September to discuss key issues relating to the BID project.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and approved the amended recommendations by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.