GORDON Anderson, of Alina Trade Ltd, Townstal, has compiled the following letter, together with other Dartmouth Business Improvement District dissenters:

When the BID was first proposed, hundreds of business owners in the TQ6 postal area, especially the Norton Park chalet owners, were not informed, consulted or given the chance to vote on the ­matter. They were effectively disenfranchised.

Businesses at Jawbones Hill were originally informed that they were outside the geographical area, only to discover later that they were to be included. Both the levy and the geographical boundary were changed without an obligatory alteration vote.

Exemptions to paying the levy were given to benefiting businesses within the TQ6 area, including Weeke Hill and Cotton Farm Caravan Park, without explanation of what criteria was applied. Both the local education and health services were obliged to pay the levy fee.

At the initial ballot less than 17 per cent of businesses voted in favour of establishing the BID. Therefore five times as many businesses did not vote in favour. Yet this poor support was deemed sufficient to be democratic.

The sound advice given by staff of a highly successful BID in Falmouth was totally ignored by the directors of the Dartmouth BID. Falmouth had harmony, whereas Dartmouth had discord. Why try to ­reinvent the wheel? This was arrogance of the highest degree.

The BID’s business plan, which is legally binding, has failed to be delivered; the long-overdue accounts were ­unaudited and therefore do not warrant ‘as being a true ­reflection of the BID’s financial dealings’. Many local businesses have not seen any benefits at all to their businesses. This has led to a lack of confidence

in the BID team and an ­uncooperative attitude for a resurrection of the BID by anyone previously involved.

A legitimate petition, of ­double the legally required number of levy payers, for an extraordinary general meeting, was refused by the BID board, despite clauses in the Companies Act 2009. Requests for the BID to be more open and transparent in its decision-­making were ignored. Genuine concerns and issues from levy payers were falling on deaf ears, while the BID board continued to operate in an autocratic and omnipotent way. Not one single public meeting was held during the second year of the BID.

Where is the improvement to Dartmouth in the BID plan? Our hard-earned money is being wasted. Businesses are trading establishments, not charities to prop up other failing businesses. We are neither lemmings nor sheep who will blindly follow a BID board that does not have the knowledge, experience or commitment to deliver its promises. There has been a failure of management, leadership, transparency and effective communication.

We are not against BIDs as a concept, but we are against the existing BID because it has failed to deliver on its promises after two years of our funding. Why throw more good money after bad for a further three years?

All the agencies of state, from the prime minister’s office to the local MP and leader of South Hams Council, were ­contacted for help, advice and guidance, but not one was prepared to respond. Our elected representatives were impotent. The BID was responsible to no one. As a consequence, the ­dissenters had to take matters into their own hands to gain justice and show what people power could do. Occasionally this is referred to as democracy