Issue - meetings

Public Questions

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Mr Rice raised the following points:

      i.          A lot of rubbish in the market square area was caused by non-market traders, but they were charged for the clean up.

    ii.          There were insufficient facilities (eg gas) for food sellers at present. These should be improved before increased market stall charges were considered.

 iii.          Equality and fairness were important policy considerations. Suggested a clumsy one size fits all approach policy was proposed. Cold food sellers were not charged the same amount of fees as hot food sellers.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places responded:

       i.          The intention was to streamline and simplify a complicated pricing process with a more uniform approach.

     ii.          Cleaning costs were part of the charge for market stall rent to hot food sellers, regardless of who caused the mess.

 

The Head of Streets and Open Spaces responded:

       i.          There was a noticeable increase in electricity costs in the last few years, which was reflected in charges to stallholders.

     ii.          Recommended charges were now in-line with other city markets.

   iii.          Cold food stalls were already charged for area cleaning as well as hot food sellers. Under the recommended changes, hot food sellers would pay an additional surcharge.

 

2.    Mr Bernard raised the following points:

      i.          It was unfair to increase charges to all stallholders for area cleansing. People who caused any mess should be charged more.

    ii.          Took issue with the proposed charges, they would make it unprofitable to have a stall due to the high levels of competition (people would go elsewhere if the market became too expensive).

 

The Head of Streets and Open Spaces responded:

       i.          The intention was to attribute costs fairly.

     ii.          The aim of the review was to simplify a 3 tier tariff into 2: premium and standard.

   iii.          There was no differentiation between corner and perimeter stalls, both were premium.

   iv.          The market was a popular venue. There was high demand for stalls and high occupancy of these due to high visitor numbers.

    v.          The Council was reviewing market cleanliness and how to keep it so in future.

   vi.          The Council supported traders through training and promotion. It was keen to promote the market.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places added that some market traders would be hit harder than others by the increased charges, but this should only be a minority. It was hoped the price structure would assist the majority.

 

3.    A market trader raised the following points:

      i.          Took issue with the proposed increased charges.

    ii.          Traders had to provide their own facilities.

 iii.          People booked week day slots just so they could get weekend slots which were more profitable. (Council policy only allowed people to book whole weeks). This meant that stalls were empty during the week.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places responded:

       i.          Proposed charges were benchmarked to be in-line with other markets across the country.

     ii.          Referred to P57 of the Officer’s report. Cambridge market costs were in-line with, sometimes cheaper than, other markets including smaller town ones.

 

The Head of Streets and Open Spaces responded:

       i.          The Council tried to spread different types of stalls across the market, but people would be given a specific site upon request.

     ii.          Officers had to be mindful of the impact of food stalls on others eg food smells on clothing stalls.

   iii.          The Council had a duty of care regarding the market and would look into the impact of siting stalls to ensure that fire regulations were complied with.

 

4.    Councillor Gillespie raised the following points:

      i.          Asked that Member’s did not accept recommendations in the Officer’s report. Expressed concern that traders may lose their livelihood through increased charges.

    ii.          The market place had been neglected for decades. Members now had a chance to do something positive by investing funding raised through fees back into the market.

 iii.          Traders had little confidence in support offered by Officers.

  iv.          Traders had to clear up stall areas themselves.

    v.          Expressed concern over health and safety in the market area due to uneven cobblestones.

  vi.          Occupancy number were based on bookings not stall use. Stalls may be unused during the week so traders could get a weekend slot. The two should be separated, current regulations were unfair.

vii.          Suggested implementing incubator stalls to facilitate growth.

viii.          Took issue with the propose fees and charges.

  ix.          The City Council should use the market as an income stream, but fairly.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places responded:

       i.          Officers had liaised with Cambridge Past Present & Future about the market.

     ii.          Uneven paving was the Highways Authority’s responsibility.

   iii.          The City Council did not have the resources to renovate the market area at present.

   iv.          Actions to ensure the market was healthy in the short term:

·       Bringing fees in-line with other markets across the country.

·       Working with Cambridge BID to see how to invest in the market.

 

The Head of Streets and Open Spaces said that various officers were providing support to traders. They actively promoted the market and visited it every day. Expressed concern that traders did not feel supported and undertook to follow this up.

 

The Director of Environment said the market was an asset for the city. The intention was to co-ordinate cleansing and market support services. The market was cleansed early on a daily basis.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report followed a LEAN process review of the markets administrative procedures and the supporting financial reconciliation function as part of the Support Services Review. The recommendations were supported by the outcome of a benchmarking exercise to compare the offer of Cambridge markets with that of similar regional and national operators and would bring city charges up to parity.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

Agreed to:

       i.          Adopt a dual premium/standard stall fee structure over all days to replace current multiple or flat rent structure.

     ii.          Harmonise charges to bring Sunday rent in line with fees levied on Saturdays.

   iii.          Adopt a £7 per pitch premium for traders licenced to sell hot food.

   iv.          Adopt a £5 per pitch premium for traders operating on days not licenced.

    v.          A 4% rebate to all traders that pay by direct debit and are trading at financial year end.

   vi.          Withdraw credit of two weeks absence charges (holiday entitlement).

 vii.          Adopt rental charges as outlined in section 3.13 of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Head of Streets and Open Spaces on behalf of the Markets & Street Trading Development Manager.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          A diverse market was a healthy market ie not limited to 1 – 2 stall types.

     ii.          A lot of rubbish in the market square was caused by revellers not stall holders. Hoped that Officers would liaise with traders to address issues. An unclean market square caused a (poor) reputation issue for the Council.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places said the following:

       i.          Demand for stalls was higher than supply.

     ii.          Cambridge BID was working with traders regarding market area cleaning. This would be included in the 5 year plan in future.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Streets and Open Spaces said the following:

       i.          Undertook to check if market traders were offered an exit interview. Would implement one if not.

     ii.          The intention was to simplify the pricing structure. It would be reviewed on an annual basis in future to ensure it was fit for purpose.

 

The Director of Environment said there was no conflict of interest between (independent) environmental health operatives and street cleaning operatives.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.