Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

The report detailed the budget proposals relating to the Environmental Services and City Centre portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2017/18.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

Review of Charges:

       i.          Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

Revenue:

     ii.          Noted the revenue budget proposals as shown in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.

Capital:

   iii.          Noted the capital budget proposals as shown in Appendix C 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 Principal Accountant (Services).

 

Councillor Gillespie addressed the Committee as a non-voting attendee, to make the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Welcomed the bid for electric charging points.

     ii.          Expressed concern regarding charges imposed on market traders for stall hire. Referred to discussions at Community Services Scrutiny Committee in 2016 and concerns raised by stall holders who did not understand the need for fee increases.

   iii.          Expressed specific concerns regarding:

a.    Fee increases were unfair.

b.    Rubbish left over night in the market square by passers-by and impact on stall holders.

c.    The number of empty stalls and impact on City Council income from fees.

d.    Practicability of a night market if the day one had issues.

   iv.          The 2016 fee restructure made more desirable stalls cost more.

    v.          Asked the Executive Councillor to liaise with stall holders in person.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre responded:

       i.          The City Centre Manager - Markets & Street Trading Development had contacted 204 stall holders. Only 3 of these responded, and they raised issues as per Councillor Gillespie’s.

     ii.          The intention was to level out fees, so not all stallholders would be affected.

   iii.          Responses to specific concerns:

a.    The market was not a statutory council function.

b.    70% of £30,000 funding allocated to the market was allocated for cleaning. 30% was for re-investing on the market eg preventing grease from food stalls affecting others.

c.    Recategorisation of market fees did not affect the majority of Monday – Saturday stall holders. The aim was to align Sunday premium stall fees with other days of the week.

d.    The proposals equalled out fees across different markets so they were all consistent.

 

Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Took issue with the need to increase fee/charges.

     ii.          Queried why the universal 2% increase in council charges had not been included in the Officer’s report.

   iii.          Asked for consultation details to help scrutinise the report (as per requests on other reports earlier in the meeting).

   iv.          Queried the number of empty stalls on the market.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre responded:

       i.          People were able to contact the City Centre Manager - Markets & Street Trading Development with any questions or comments.

     ii.          Would note there were good practice ways to contact people such as a regular forum with stakeholders.

   iii.          The market continued to be viable, footfall had increased over the last 2 years.

   iv.          It was the City Centre Manager - Markets & Street Trading Development’s responsibility to balance the range of stalls. There were a high number of applications and he sometimes turned away some applicants if there were too many of one type.

    v.          Undertook to follow up issues raised post meeting.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (i) by 3 votes to 2.

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (ii) by 3 votes to 0.

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (iii) by 3 votes to 0.

 

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.