Campaigners say they have found more Spalding firms who did not receive Business Improvement District vote
More town centre firms have come forward to say they did not receive voting papers on whether a trader funded business group should have been established, say campaigners.
Photographer Julian Wheeler has been surveying nearly 30 businesses within the Spalding Business Improvement District (BID) catchment area and says he has uncovered more people who missed out their opportunity to take part in last summer’s ballot.
The BID — which organisers promised could raise £1million over five years to help boost the fortunes of the town — was brought in as a result of a very narrow ballot last summer, with just one vote tipping the balance. A total of 115 votes were cast from a business community of more than 400 during the ballot, with 58 in favour.
Almost 20 businesses came together for a meeting last week to share their anger at the ‘unaffordable levy’ after receiving the backdated bills along with questioning the validity of the vote. The meeting was organised after the Spalding Against BID Facebook page was set up.
Mr Wheeler, of Welland Photo Services, said that the traders he has spoken to have expressed concerns about the responsiveness of BID email address.
He said: “Traders do not want it and if the vote was re-run tomorrow, it would be an overwhelming no.
“The small businesses are the ones that pull people into the town centre and are so far against it that it is unanimous.
“No-one can see how it is going to benefit individual businesses. Most traders would like to see Spalding town centre improved but most are pragmatic enough to see it is beyond repair.
“Most people were not aware the bill was going to be backdated to September.”
We had previously reported that Rachel Beresford, of Munchkins Kindergarten in Priory Road, did not receive her original ballot paper or its replacement in the run-up to ballot in June last year.
She had contacted the Mosaic Partnership, which oversaw the BID process and the initial feasibility study, on June 11 and 14 but did not receive a response until June 17. She received a form to request a replacement vote which was acknowledged on June 24.
South Holland District Council was responsible for the ballot and has been informed by Civica, an electoral services provider, that every business who requested a ballot was sent out at the first legally allowed date of June 24 - just four days before the deadline.
The authority says it has been told by Civica that ‘every business that requested a lost ballot was sent one by post on the earliest legally allowed date’ - which was June 24. It also stated that all eligible businesses were contacted ‘regularly’ throughout the ballot process.
The council told us previously: “The council was responsible for the ballot and takes any reports of issues with the electoral process extremely seriously. We would ask anyone who is concerned to contact us directly, with as much information as possible, so it can be properly investigated between us and our electoral services provider.”
Traders will be meeting again on Tuesday, March 25, at 7pm at Welland Photo Services in The Crescent.
