By Carole Dennett
Island tourism businesses will have to pay half their annual Wight BID levy this month, despite being promised the option of spreading the cost over 10 months.
The remaining 50 per cent will be due in March, after the tourism body, Visit Isle of Wight (VIOW), and the IW Council failed to agree arrangements for monthly Direct Debit collections, and the advance funding needed to cover VIOW’s initial cash-flow requirements. Both organisations dispute responsibility for the failure to put the arrangements in place. Monthly instalments are now expected to begin in 2028.
As previously reported, the mandatory BID levy was narrowly approved in a ballot, with the result announced on October 29.
The Wight BID Business Plan, circulated with ballot papers, stated that collection arrangements would be similar to those for business rates. VIOW also promoted the opportunity to spread payments over 10 months.
The change could particularly affect smaller tourism businesses, expecting to pay much of their levy from next year’s tourism income.
It has now been revealed that VIOW requested a £500,000 advance from the Council, formally submitted on October 27, two days before the ballot closed. The Council confirmed the request was linked to cash-flow implications arising from payment by instalments.
VIOW claims the Council had previously given assurances that Direct Debit arrangements and bridging finance would not present problems. The Council disputes this, saying no funding agreement existed and it had never committed to November Direct Debit collections. Both sides appear to agree there was no written agreement.
VIOW has since withdrawn its request, and arranged to collect the levy in two payments.
Conflicting accounts over payments
Acting VIOW chairman, Steve Wells, said: “We want to deliver for levy payers exactly what they voted for. It is deeply disappointing that, despite starting these conversations with the Isle of Wight Council months ago, the Council is no closer to giving businesses the flexibility they were promised.”
He confirmed Direct Debit remained available, adding: “Nobody pays a penny more than the business plan set out. From year two, payments will be spread across the year as planned, and we will hold the Council to that.”
Mr Wells said VIOW representatives met the Council’s revenues team on August 19, when officers expressed confidence that Direct Debit could be delivered. “At no point before or during the ballot did anyone at the Council say it couldn’t be done,” he said. He added that VIOW’s BID adviser believed the change does not affect the ballot’s validity.
The Council disputes failing to deliver an agreed arrangement. A spokesman said Direct Debit required changes to collection systems and further discussions. The £500,000 advance would also have required financial, legal, and risk assessments.
Unanswered ballot questions
Questions have emerged about the ballot, conducted by an independent company.
Following complaints from businesses claiming they had not received ballot papers, the IW Observer requested the list of eligible properties, known as the hereditament list. The Council refused, arguing that legislation only required them to be available during the canvassing period, which had ended. Despite being asked, it did not identify the specific wording supporting that interpretation. VIOW has promised to publish a list online.
Questions also remain about the Council’s own votes.
Its Economy, Regeneration, Transport and Infrastructure (ERTI) Committee considered how to vote privately, but the Council has refused to disclose the outcome.
Of the returned ballot papers, 51 were rejected as invalid, approximately 13 per cent. There have been suggestions that 41 may have belonged to the Council, although this remains unconfirmed. The Council did not answer when asked whether its papers had been correctly completed.
Mr Wells said VIOW were aware the Council had voted but could not confirm whether its papers were valid. If the claims were correct, he said, businesses deserved an explanation.
Two directors resign
Two VIOW directors resigned shortly after the ballot result.
David Holmes said he felt he had “insufficient knowledge and little control” as a director.
Cllr Reuben Locke, who represented the Council and had been criticised for missing board meetings, said he was “disappointed” VIOW had not explained the circumstances.
He said: “As I explained a number of times to some board members – who seemed unable or unwilling to accept my position – the ballot process created a conflict of interest between my responsibilities as a councillor and my role as a board member. When it became clear that this position was not accepted, I felt I had no alternative but to resign.”
The five-year BID imposes a mandatory levy on eligible tourism businesses and increases the Council’s own costs significantly.
A challenge can be brought within 28 days of the result, which must have support from at least 5 per cent of eligible voters.
For many businesses, the more immediate concern will be finding half their annual levy months earlier than anticipated.