Decision details

(i)  To review and confirm that the BID Proposal does not conflict to a material extent with the Council’s adopted, published policies, nor does it warrant the use of veto for any other reason under regulation 12 of the BID Regulations 2004 (England) and that it can therefore be supported. 

(ii)  To instruct the Returning Officer to hold a ballot on behalf of the BID Proposer, with the final day of ballot being 3 November 2016.

(iii)  In the event of agreeing recommendation (i), agrees to vote ‘yes’ for the six Council owned properties in the BID area.

(iv)  To delegate authority to the Chief Operating Officer to make all decisions on behalf of the Council in connection with, and during the BID Proposal statutory process including entering into a Baseline Agreement for the Provision of Standard Services and an Operating Agreement to confirm agreed arrangements.

1.  Under the BID regulations, the Council has a duty to receive BID proposals as part of the process to ballot. The Council has a role in ensuring compliance and has the power under the regulations to veto a BID proposal after ballot where it believes the BID proposals:

•  are likely to materially conflict with any of the Council’s formal policies;

•  place an inequitable and significantly disproportionate financial burden on any class of non-domestic ratepayer as a result of manipulation of the BID area or BID levy.

2.  The recommendations are in support of the “Go Southampton” proposal as it is considered to:

•  conform to all required BID Regulations;

•  add value to existing initiatives and local strategic priorities;

•  provide leverage of additional resource and initiatives to improve the experience, marketing and viability of the City Centre and thereby enhance the economic growth of the city and outcomes for residents.

Should the Council vote not to support the proposal, it would risk: 

·  The loss of revenue of over £1 million per annum for five years to the BID Company which, working with the Council, will support the promotion and regeneration of the City Centre;

·  The loss of additional leverage and match funding;  and 

·  Damage to business relationships and dis-engagement of local businesses to work in partnership with each other and with the Council for the betterment of the area.