My Lords, Amendment 64 seeks to amend the legislation on business improvement districts—BIDs—so that residents have a say in their establishment, policies and management bodies.
There has been widespread criticism of the undemocratic way in which BIDs are established and operate. The Government website says:
“There is no limit on what projects or services can be provided through a Business Improvement District. The only requirement is that it should be something that is in addition to services provided by local authorities”.
As a result, powerful local businesses can push through projects for their own commercial benefit, for which they are willing to pay. In my area, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is happy to agree to them if they can be described as “improving the public realm”. Local residents may be affected by these projects—streetscape, street furniture, new advertisements and clutter, narrowing of the carriageway, unwelcome new parking and traffic management arrangements and other anti-motorist measures—but they cannot influence them.
I want to say a few words about two BID schemes in the borough in which I live. The Cadogan estate, for which I have the highest regard—it has done some great developments in Duke of York Square and Pavilion Road, for instance—has initiated and established two BID schemes. Following Committee, I have been asked by the chief executive, Hugh Seaborn, to re-examine the comments that I made about lack of consultation during that stage; I am grateful that he is reading our debates. Having reviewed the matter, I have to correct some of my comments. Residents’ associations—Brompton, MISARA and the local society, the Chelsea Society—were consulted by Cadogan but their views do not seem to have been taken into account in the final decision. In fact, they might as well not have been consulted at all.
I believe that the BID legislation should be amended so that local residents, first, are consulted on proposals for their establishment; secondly, are represented on BID proposal groups that prepare the business plan; thirdly, participate in a vote on the establishment; and, fourthly, are represented on BID management bodies. In addition, local planning authorities—LPAs—should be able to veto BID proposals if there are significant objections from local residents, not just if they conflict with a significant policy of that LPA.
The Minister’s response in a letter on BIDs was that
“the majority of BIDs set Baseline Agreements with their local authority to demonstrate the additionality it will provide over the term of the BID. The Government encourages the use of clear agreements and the fostering of strong ongoing relationships between BID bodies and their local authorities, to make sure each is aware of their obligations towards one another and to agree changes to such agreements where appropriate. The BID itself is responsible for deciding on the mix of representatives to ensure their Governance Board is an effective decision-making body with the right skills. The legislation does not preclude local authorities from being represented on the BID board, nor residents or members of the community”.
My reply to that would be that the Minister’s response did not answer the point. Indeed, the legislation does not preclude residents from being represented on the board of a BID, but what happens at present is that BID promoters make arrangements for their own
commercial advantage and exclude resident representation as they know that the views of local residents will conflict with those of the business promoters.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook did not explain why she opposed the amendment. She said that local authorities are represented on some BID boards and reiterated that
“the legislation does not preclude residents … from being consulted”.
She also said:
“It is right that the businesses that will be required to fund the BID make the decisions on whether there should be consultations”,—[Official Report, 20/3/23; col. 1645.]
effectively concerning their undemocratic nature.
The Knightsbridge BID board of 19 people has one council officer and one RBKC councillor who does not represent any residents living in the area covered by the BID. I fear a repetition of the damage that has already been caused to Sloane Street, narrowing the carriageway so as to create dedicated parking bays and installing large, ugly planters to prevent ram-raiding. This is why I have tabled Amendment 64.
I also wish to speak to Amendment 65, which seeks to prepare a code of practice for major, non-statutory consultations by local authorities to ensure that they are impartial and not manipulative. Within six months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice for major, non-statutory consultations by local authorities. The code must recommend ways to ensure impartiality, including, first, having a consultation conducted by an independent third party; secondly, having the consultation materials and process pre-approved by such a party; or, thirdly, having those materials and process submitted in draft to the main stakeholders for their review and comments in advance of the consultations. The Consultation Institute commends on its website The Art of Consultation, by Rhion Jones and Elizabeth Gammell, as:
“A unique book, essential to those involved with consultations … There’s a multi-million-pound industry out there, currently asking us what we think. Lots of this is public money and much of it is wasted. Whilst a great deal of consultation is effective, some of it is downright dishonest; decision-makers have already made up their minds. If they then consult, it’s a waste of everyone’s time; they are just going through the motions”.
5 pm
There have been a number of examples of consultations by RBKC designed to endorse a project which the council has already decided it wishes to implement, with manipulative questions and no attempt at impartiality. One such was the RBKC consultation on the Cadogan Estate’s scheme to narrow the carriageway on Sloane Street so as to create parking bays outside its high-end designer shops, which will increase already high levels of congestion and pollution on the street and disfigure it with 52 ugly planters, believed to prevent ram raiding. This was taken up by the council and rebranded as a scheme to “improve the public realm”. Among the consultation materials—to give but one example—was a question on whether people wanted “more trees and planting”, which was welcomed as people generally like more trees, instead of separate questions about trees and planters, which might have seen the planters rejected. The request by the main local residents’ association that the consultation be conducted by an independent third party, failing which it sought the
opportunity to review and comment on the consultation materials in draft before being issued, received no reply. I emphasise strongly that I am not criticising in any way the Cadogan Estate’s pursuit of its commercial objectives, merely the way in which the council chose to conduct its consultation.
During the debate in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, wondered whether existing Cabinet Office guidelines could help, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said that she thought there were already guidelines for consultations by local authorities. I have discovered, unfortunately, that the Cabinet Office guidelines do not help because they refer only to consultations by the Government. There is a code of practice on publicity issued by local authorities, but this does not extend to consultations. There is some LGA guidance on the technicalities of conducting a consultation, but this does not address the issue of impartiality. I have asked the Consultation Institute whether it is aware of anything authoritative that does.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, objected that a requirement for all consultations to be carried out by third parties would increase additional costs on local authorities. That is a fair point, so I have recast the amendment to include
“(c) having the consultation materials and process submitted in draft to the main stakeholders for their review and comment in advance of the consultation”.
I believe that option (c) would normally be the cheapest and most effective.
It should be noted that major non-statutory streetscape schemes such as the Sloane Street scheme can be every bit as contentious as and more significant than the vast majority of planning applications. However, streetscape schemes do not require planning approval. Everyone accepts that planning applications must, by law, go through a form of consultation involving the local community; the same should apply to major non-statutory schemes. I have not sought to define “major”—that can be left to the Government.
I have been asked again by the Cadogan Estate to say that a consultation on the scheme took place, with information being sent to nearly 13,000 properties, but only 1,170 responses were received. I beg to move.