Letter of Concern 

To the Chairman of the Board, Stratforward BID Ltd. 07.11.2022 

Dear Mr Monks 

We are writing to you with a matter of concern relating to a planning application made by LSD Promotions to run a Winter Market on the Waterside area of the town. Licence application - Licence Reference - 22/01003/STCON. 

Our concern is that various untrue statements were made in the application and that the LSD representative attending the hearing is a Director of both LSD Promotions, the applicant, and a Director of Stratforward Business Improvement District Limited, also known as Stratford BID. 

In a statement submitted in the application to the hearing and signed as true, LSD Promotions claimed that Stratford BID supported their application. 

We know this statement to be untrue and submitted a response to counter this claim and provided evidence. 

After studying the evidence, the Chair of the panel described the application as “Nefarious”, though this word has been changed in the released decision. 

LSD Promotions also made a claim, in further submissions, that “LSD have operated in Stratford Upon Avon since October 2012. Additionally, they continue to operate in the following cities and towns”. They then list 32 cities/towns where it is claimed that the applicants operate. 

We knew this was untrue in at least one case, so we chose 10 of the local authorities at random and asked each for information on who ran their market contracts. 

Out of this small sample, we received the following replies: 

Worcester – operated by Cotswold Markets (including their Christmas market) 

Banbury – Operated by Cherwell District Council 

Droitwich Spa – Have had no market since 2018 

Dudley – Operated by Dudley Council and Tudor Markets 

Shrewsbury – Operated by Shropshire Council 

Cannock – Operated by Bescot Promotions (including their Christmas market) 

Gloucester – Operated by Peel, Blackfriars Priory and Made in Stroud farmers market. 

Kidderminster – Operated by LSD 

Market Drayton – Operated by LSD 

Evesham – Operated by Bluebell Events 

We have not independently verified the above information, though this was provided by the 

representative local authorities on request in October of 2022. 

We invite the Stratford BID Board to draw their own conclusions about the integrity and reliability of this claim. 

LSD Promotions made an application for a category 3 event, which is for between 50 to 75 stalls. However, the Market layout they submitted, headed Waterside Winter Market, contained a plan for 93 stalls. 

LSD Promotions pay SDC per stall and would have been at a financial advantage had this matter not been challenged by the Business Action Group. 

Was this an error, as claimed by LSD? It took them three attempts to finally submit a market plan that was in line with that which they had applied. 

This detail you would have thought had been settled before the application, given that the application requests legal consent. 

LSD Took three attempts at the plans before they were correct, two of which were just the afternoon before the hearing. 

While LSD attempted to plead ignorance to all of this, a panel member pointed out to the Director of LSD Promotions that this was “your application”. 

In Conclusion 

We must ask the Stratford BID Board to consider this matter as one of concern for the following reasons: 

Your company Director claimed your organisation supported his licence application for his other company; knowing this to be untrue, you must question their fitness to hold office on your Board. 

In a legally made licence application, your company director stated that they continued to trade in several other towns and cities, knowing that this was untrue, which also raises a question of their fitness to serve. 

Your company director made an application for between 50 to 75 stalls but planned a Market of 93 stalls, thus potentially gaining financially at the expense of the local authorities, also questions fitness to serve. 

You must consider a combination of untrue claims, but most importantly, the quoting of your organisation claiming you supported his licence application, knowing it to be untrue. 

This, along with the other issues we have outlined, means you need to conclude the integrity of the Director concerned. 

For your information, we have attached a copy of our second submission to the panel. 

Please note that all application and submission details are freely available online