Agenda item

Committee to receive and scrutinise the Business Plans for both the Godalming and Farnham BIDs before they go to Ballot. Frances Pearce (Godalming BID Project Manager) and Alex Fergusson (Farnham BID Project Manager) to present to the Committee.

Recommendations:

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee – Resources is invited to:

(a)        Consider and comment on WBC’s support for the BID business plans submitted for Farnham and Godalming; and

(b)       Note the cost to WBC, as a Business Rate Payer, in the event of the two BID ballots being successful.

Catherine Knight, Economic Development Manager, presented details about the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in Godalming and Farnham. Frances Pearce (Farnham BID Project Manager) and Alex Ferguson (Godalming BID Project Manager) attended the meeting to present their respective BIDs. They provided information on proposed budgets and goals for these BIDs. The central aim of these BIDs was to attract more investment into the high streets, focusing on marketing, cleanliness, business support, and access/travel. Key points discussed included:

Farnham BID:

·        Farnham had 420 business-rated units with a rateable value of over £15 million, generating an income of over £300,000 per year.

·        Priorities included marketing and promotion, a digital High Street, cleanliness, business support, and access and travel.

·        Marketing initiatives would work closely with the Town Council and include website development and brand creation.

·        Cleanliness focused on reducing business-related crime and anti-social behavior while promoting the feel-good factor.

·        Business support aimed at offering information and investment pursuit, reducing business costs through collective procurement.

·        Creating incentive programs for businesses was part of the plan.

·        A town center manager would oversee these efforts, reporting back to the BID board.

Godalming BID:

·        Godalming had around 280 business units within the BID boundary with a rateable value exceeding £8.5 million, generating an income of £173,000 per year.

·        Priorities included marketing, a digital High Street, cleanliness, business support, and access and travel.

·        The goal was to differentiate Godalming from neighboring shopping areas.

·        They planned to invest in a website, loyalty schemes, public Wi-Fi, and wayfinding solutions.

·        The BID would provide skills training and networking opportunities for businesses.

·        A part-time project manager was to be hired, reporting back to the BID board.

Both BIDs emphasized working together and collaborating on collective procurement for services like waste management and merchant services.

Cllr Laughton inquired about the projected timelines for implementing the various initiatives within the BIDs. Catherine clarified that the timeline would depend on the nature of each initiative, with some expected to roll out within the next six months and others over a year.

The Committee raised concerns about ensuring a proper balance between Godalming and Farnham, so that resources were distributed equitably. Catherine assured that the BIDs aimed to be as balanced as possible and would evaluate their success over time.

Cllr Weldon recommended involving businesses and residents actively to ensure community engagement. Both BIDs affirmed their intention to consult with businesses and incorporate their feedback.

Cllr Atkins expressed her support for the vision behind the BIDs but raised concerns about effective execution. She pointed out that with a total levy of £470,000, which includes £73,000 from Waverley, it’s a significant sum, especially in cost-conscious times. She emphasised the importance of ensuring that the individuals managing the BIDs are highly competent. She cited examples of successful and failed BIDs, such as Winchester and the Isle of Wight, and sought assurance on the recruitment process.

Catherine noted that Mosaic, the consultancy firm, clarified that they had a robust recruitment process, and Mosaic’s extensive experience in successful bids nationwide helped ensure that qualified candidates would be selected for key positions.

Cllr MacLeod shared support but questioned the budget of £495,000 for four staff over five years, wondering if it included only salaries. Catherine explained that the initial setup would involve one full-time member of staff, with the possibility of shared resources between Farnham and Godalming.

Catherine elaborated on the return on investment, emphasizing that levy payers would receive regular reports, including weekly or bi-weekly updates, annual reports, and an AGM. Additionally, the council would have a non-voting representative within each BID board to ensure transparency and communication.

Cllr Macleod raised concerns about Haslemere’s absence from the bid, noting that they initially showed interest. Catherine further explained that Haselmere’s decision to opt out of the BID was related to having resolved some local issues and having enough income from the business centre. This decision, however, didn’t impact the three participating towns – Godalming, Farnham, and Cranleigh.

A question arose about the levy collection and whether it could be split among four towns if Haslemere decided to join. Catherine explained that Waverley was in the process of purchasing civica software, which would need all three yes votes to proceed. If Haselmere were to join, the cost would be divided, and economies of scale would come into play, making the collection more efficient.

The Committee discussed the costs associated with supporting the BIDs. One participant expressed confusion about the end costs to Waverly and sought clarification on whether these costs would be allocated proportionately or if new staff members would need to be recruited.

The response provided by Catherine indicated that the ongoing costs per annum would amount to £44,000. These costs were associated with owning properties within the three areas, and Finance identified the need for a full-time staff member to manage levy collection, chasing, and the statutory role of the local authority. This would entail the reclamation of money from the BID organisations.

There was mention of a one-time capex cost of £43,000 for software. This cost was contingent on all three BIDs being approved, and, therefore, Cranleigh had postponed its start date until after the ballot results.

The discussion then shifted to additional funding and contributions from charity shops. It was clarified that bids have the ability to seek additional funding through various means. This included the possibility of applying for funding from local funds, parish councils, or town councils. An example was cited where a colleague secured a significant investment of £3 million for a town through an application for funding from Surrey County Council.

In response to a query about charity shops, it was noted that they would be required to contribute 2% of their rateable value, regardless of whether they pay business rates. The contribution was determined based on the rateable value of the property.

Some links have are provided, following the successful Cranleigh BID result.

Declaration: Waverley Borough council - BID Ballots

Press release: Read our latest news | Council updates | Waverley Borough Council

cranleighbid.co.uk)

The Committee noted the business plans of the BIDs as submitted. Participants also acknowledged and noted the cost to Waverly Borough Council as a business rate payer in the event that the two BID ballots are successful. There were no further comments made.