Scottish Government

The approach to landlords would appear appropriate but there should also be scope for landlords to be treated as businesses and to form a BID to take forward initiatives, which may enhance, e.g. the operations of the private rented sector for the benefit of the wider community. If the levy is to be based on the non-domestic rating valuation roll then the inclusion of landlords has to be on a voluntary basis as proposed.

It is important to have landlords involved in the BID, as they will ultimately benefit from any improvements to the area as a result of BID initiatives. In addition, landlord involvement will provide a necessary element of stability to the BID as they are less likely to change over a five year period. The landlord's input and influence on the final outcome must reflect the fact that their contributions are voluntary when everyone else will have a mandatory levy.

East Dunbartonshire Council would support the view that landlords should be encouraged to participate in the development, implementation and funding of a BID through contributions and that level of contribution is disclosed as part of the BID proposals. This view is taken on the understanding that physical development proposals are often hindered by the non participation of absentee landlords.

The approach towards landlords may need further investigation. To what extent, for example, do landlords contribute on a voluntary basis in existing BID schemes in England? There may also be differences between large institutional landlords and more local ones. Perhaps guidance could be issued along with the BID documentation to illustrate the range of benefits which landlords might achieve, and the level of contribution which might reasonably be expected or has been achieved elsewhere.

Yes. Although the main immediate beneficiary of a successful BID will be the tenant, the measures implemented as part of each BID should contribute towards regenerating the local area and community. While rents might be depressed in the short term due to the higher business rate, given that landlords will probably benefit in the medium to long-term through the increased rent that their properties will command as a result of the delivery of agreed improvements, they should be encouraged to contribute on a voluntary basis towards the BID.

Disagree that landlords should only be involved in BID's on a voluntary basis as this will lead to 'freeloading'. It is critical that the landlord is directly involved with the scheme in terms of voting and the levy. The landlord is likely to benefit from a successful scheme in terms of increased property values with the likelihood that rent to tenants will be increased. Participation by the landlord should therefore be mandatory. This requires a formula to determine the proportion of votes and the levy to be allocated to tenants and landlords (and how owner-occupied are dealt with).

Ultimately the system will benefit if a means can be established to incorporate landlords into the BID process. Landlords are one of the key beneficiaries, currently contributing a greater level of investment into Town Centre Management initiatives in the U.K. than retailers, and will have a central role in delivering an effective BID.

Without doubt within a successful BID application key beneficiaries would be the landlords. The only issue we would raise are the words voluntary contributions. Within a defined BID area it can be expected that business tenants may come and go within a 5 year period whilst the landlord population is more likely to remain a constant. It is vital that landlords buy into any approved BID, however this buy in should be no more voluntary for them than it is for any other partner. Landlords must be involved in all stages of the BID proposal.

The suggested approach towards landlords of encouraging voluntary contributions is acceptable. However, we do believe that this approach misses an opportunity to help ensure the viability of BID proposals. In many instances landlords will also receive economic benefits from the work undertaken through a BID, whether through property improvement, increased rental values or increased ability to let. If landlord's contributions remain voluntary then they are able to benefit without cost. If all other businesses in a BID area are contributing, but not necessarily receiving an economic benefit, then it would be divisive to allow landlords a voluntary contribution.

We believe the BIDs legislation would be enhanced by requiring landlords to be involved in BIDs proposals and make appropriate payments. Clearly this would add complication to the system because it is often the tenant rather than the landlord that pays NDR thus requiring additional billing and follow-up procedures.

One of the barriers to this process will be getting tenants to participate when they will see the greater benefits going to landlords. There has always been the issue that improvements made by tenants are used by landlords as a reason to raise rents. There should be a mandatory levy on landlords equal to that paid by the tenants.

Landlords should certainly be involved, noting they are likely to benefit from improvements via increased rent/property values. In the US owners pay the BID levy and pass onto tenants via rent/lease, the voluntary option for landlords here with allowance for opt out may be seen as unfair in certain schemes. If required landowner contributions could be levied via the sundry debts mechanism.

As currently drafted the landlord in any BID is the non-paying, non-involved, non-responsible but ultimate beneficiary of the BID, this is a flaw. Tenants will pay the additional levy and yet will potentially face increased rateable value and rent as a result of improvements. The consultation recognises this scenario but its solution "discuss with their landlord" is unacceptable.

Furthermore, where tenants support and co-finance a BID there should be consideration given to their receiving a tie-in option to their property and its current rateable value as a result. This will encourage involvement and also a guaranteed fair distribution of the benefits. The Executive must consider statutory involvement of landlords and property owners and in return for the benefits that will accrue to them through the successful running of the BID they must also bear some of the cost.

There is a strong case to be made that the owners should be more than voluntary contributors. My initial view is that there should be levies imposed equally on owners and occupiers. I also suggest that property owners would obtain rebates based on investments they made improving their properties in schemes taken jointly with the BID management organisation. If such owner participation was introduced it would add to a sense of equity for tenant businesses and encourage new private investment in properties in BID improvement areas.

We believe that BIDs should involve property owners. Property owners would be major beneficiaries from any BID schemes, as the rentable value of their property would likely increase. Given property owners would benefit from BIDs and have a major stake in any BID established, the legislation should include clear models for their involvement.

As one such model, we support the proposed mechanism where property owners make voluntary contributions, which should be guaranteed for the life of the BID and made explicit before any BID vote takes place.

However, we also believe that there could be an enabling mechanism within legislation, which gives another option for property owner involvement. This could be achieved by a model setting out two different types of BIDs in the legislation - those which included property owners as a voting constituency and included a required contribution and those which specifically excluded them as voters, though their voluntary involvement would be encouraged. Clearly the approach adopted by any particular BID would depend on practicalities (such as the costs involved, how to access the relevant information, etc) and what model was most appropriate for the local circumstances.

We are firmly of the opinion that landlords should contribute financially and it should be compulsory. As suggested in the pre-amble this obligation might be sweetened by allowing certain expenditures on the fabric of the owners building to be taken into account and result in a rebate. Arrangements could be put in place that Trusts are established to ensure careful management and accounting for such expenditure.

Landlords have to be involved in the process. If they lose a tenant during a BID the re-occupation may be influenced by any levy imposed. Difficult to know how to deal with landlords of vacant business property of which there are many in depressed areas. Similarly many High Street premises are owned by absent landlords with no interest in the locality but who potentially stand to gain from improvements in value resulting from a BID. A voluntary contribution in such instances is unlikely. Landlords should require to be included in the process by legislation.

Landlords/property owners are the main beneficiaries of BIDs. It is essential that landlords are directly involved with the scheme in terms of voting and the levy. The landlord may benefit from a successful scheme in terms of increased property values and rent to tenants will probably be increased. Voluntary contributions from property owners could affect the sustainability of the BID. As will changes in property owners during the BID term. Participation by the landlord should be mandatory, however the difficulties of voting rights and issues of levying the same property twice need to be resolved.

There should be a mechanism to ensure fair and equitable contributions from all parties who will benefit from the scheme. To secure funding, certain benefits could be offered to landlord, i.e. rewards for implementing improvements to property within a BID (reduced Vat rates as used in historical buildings or, an extension of the current Inland Revenue exceptions on Stamp Duty within specified areas).

The expectation of voluntary contribution is at odds with the overall compulsory nature of the scheme for the occupiers. It is now clear from English practice that they have not found a way to address this problem. It would seem sensible to address this head on if Scottish legislation was being promoted, since the ultimate beneficiaries of long term improvements are the property owners as capital values increase.

Landlords/property owners are the ultimate beneficiaries of BIDS. It is essential that landlords are directly involved with the scheme in terms of voting and the levy. The landlord is likely to benefit from a successful scheme in terms of increased property values with the likelihood that rent to tenants will be increased. Participation by the landlord should ideally be mandatory, however the difficulty and administrative cost of collection is recognised. This requires a formula to determine the proportion of votes and the levy to be allocated to tenants and landlords (and how owner-occupied are dealt with). If this is not included and landlords are only involved in BID's on a voluntary basis, this could lead to 'freeloading'. Although desirable legislation should not be delayed to resolve this issue, which can perhaps be tackled at a later date.

The participation of property owners would ensure more comprehensive representation when first considering a bid. Landlords input would increase funding/scope/influence/strategic positioning of bid. Much will depend on the benefits of the BID e.g. specific environmental enhancements or improvements to trading environment. Should try to promote everyone who benefits should pay.

It may not always be appropriate for the contributions to be voluntary if the BID would be of direct benefit to landlords. This would have to be assessed in the context of any project.

Property owners clearly have an important role in BIDs and this is outlined in the ODPM Draft Guidance. We understand that there is substantial unease in England and Wales at the lack of statutory involvement of property owners; it would be a mistake not to remedy this situation in Scotland. We suggest it would be better for property owners and occupiers to discuss and negotiate any joint payment of the levy (i.e. 50/50) and that property owners be involved irrespective of any voluntary financial contributions which they make to the BID.

We believe that landlords should be encouraged to participate. Increased business rates may depress rents in the short term but in the medium to long term landlords' rents and capital values are likely to increase as a result of improved operating business environment brought about by the BID.

The current guidelines recommend that any levy introduced as the result of a BID process will be collected through the non domestic rate system and therefore will be paid by the business operating from a property rather than the property owner. (unless the property is owner occupied.) Property owners should gain benefit from a successful BID via increased property values and it would seem reasonable to have property owners participate. The guidelines suggest that property owners should be encouraged to make voluntary contributions.

Landlords should form an integral part of the process. However there are some expectations that it may be extremely difficult to track down landlords. The inability to do this should not be a stumbling block for the BID process to go ahead. Property owners are businesses in their own right (essentially operating from the same premises as their tenants) and the identity and contact details of owners should be know to both the tenants and the local authority.

Without the involvement of landlords, vacant properties, which in some cases may be integral to the reasoning behind a property related or public realm BID proposal, would be excluded. Therefore it would seem reasonable to seek a means to directly involve owners as partners in the BID process, perhaps through the payment of a proportion of the appropriate levy. Such a process could of course entitle owners to voting rights in the proposals to establish the BID particularly should they be asked to pay a matching levy.

Alternatively the onus should perhaps be placed on tenant businesses to negotiate with their landlords for a contribution towards their levy. Failure to do this, however, would not reduce the levy on any one business. Such a process could be highly disparate. A further alternative may be the framing of legislation to accommodate two types of BID (Property and public realm related BIDs to include owner participation and non property related BIDs in which landlords could participate on a voluntary basis.

Despite the fact that Landlords are not listed on the non-domestic rates system, I think they should be required to participate and contribute, just as occupiers are, because likewise, they are beneficiaries of the project. This should be legislated for and not left to local consideration. Unless landlords are compelled to contribute, some improvement plans may not happen because the costs and additional rental values would all be borne by the tenant. There are 3 Groups of interest: tenants, owner-occupiers and landlords. It might be difficult to decide how to apportion costs but this must be considered.

The expectation of voluntary contribution is at odds with the overall compulsory nature of the scheme for the occupiers. It is now clear from English practice that they have not found a way to address this problem. It would seem sensible to address this head on if Scottish legislation was being promoted, since the ultimate beneficiaries of long term improvements are likely to be the property owners if capital values increase in the improved areas.

Occupiers and owners should be encouraged to participate in the BID. However, we appreciate the fact that in some respects owners and occupiers will benefit if the BID successfully improves the area, but may feel they are losing if this increases the rateable value of the property or increases their property's financial burden in some way.