Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information

And as though the good folk of Wood Green did not have enough to think about they have voted this month on a Business Improvement District.  The promised benefits of a 1.25% precept on the business rates are set out on Future Wood Green. The BID is supported by local businesses [sic] McDonalds, Metro Bank, the Mall, the Metropolitan Police, the Green Rooms and rather surprisingly, the Little Green Book Shop.

The results are that Wood Green will become a Business Improvement District.

Rather quaintly, the results are published in a form that smacks of the good old days, when you could buy the result you wanted, simply by being rich. Of 340 possible 110 were cast of which 92 were in favour of the BID. I.e. a small minority of 27%. But look at the rateable value of the businesses involved. By this measure £9,792,000 were in favour out of a total rateable value of votes which we are not told. Strangely enough I think this may be an even smaller minority.

Tags: bid, business improvement district, wood green

Views: 204

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was wrong about the proportion in favour by rateable value. It is 32.7%  ( 9,792,00029,943,350). By which we can infer the average rateable value of the electorate is  £88,068.67 while the average rateable value of those in favour is £106,434.78. Perhaps those in occupation of the larger , more expensive properties fell better able to benefit from the additional 1.25% on the rates.

I discovered the total rateable value by writing to the Deputy Ballot Holder for the Wood Green Business Improvement
District, and receiving the reply set out below. I confess to not having properly understood the rejected rateable value argument.


Thank you for your query and certainly I can. It was £29,943,350.


I was rather proud of including far more data than is strictly required or even common in such BID declarations, but one has to draw the line somewhere. We have devised the concept of rateable value turnout but this is slightly different to turnout by actual papers received, as there is no point in recording “rejected” rateable value – there’s no provision for it as it could compromise the secrecy of the ballot. So turnout calculations include all papers received but only all rateable value included. I hope this makes sense. I make this point because if you were working backwards to come to the above £29million, it might be possible to come back to a different figure.


Any further queries, please do get in touch.


George Cooper

Head of Electoral Services & Census Liaison"



© 2019   Created by Adrian Essex.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service