Issue - meetings

A petition has been received containing over 500 valid signatures stating the following:

To Mike Davy, leader of Cambridge City Council, we the undersigned, market traders, rent payers, residents, and council tax payers of Cambridge, reject these plans for the market in the Cambridge Civic Quarter project. We think they are not fit for purpose and will be the death of the market. Please save our market by increasing the permanent stall footprint to at least 54 stalls.

The petition organiser will be given 5 minutes to present the petition at the meeting and the petition will then be discussed by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes.

The Petition Organiser spoke in support of the petition and made the following points:

i.               They made jewellery and has sold it on the market for 25 years.

ii.             Represented the Cambridge Market Traders Association which had 80 members, as well as the 2000 Friends of Cambridge Market.

iii.            The petition asked the Council to scrap its Civic Quarter proposals which proposed the removal of all 99 permanent stalls from the market and the replacement of 27 permanent stalls and 61 temporary gazebos.

iv.           The Council had said the proposal was being done to provide entertainment space in the square. Believed the need for this entertainment space had not been proven and there were other open spaces in Cambridge better suited to holding events, such as Midsummer Common and Parker’s Piece.

v.             Signatures were collected by shoppers who came to the market stalls. More than 1800 signatures were collected in 8 weeks.

vi.           People who signed the petition were telling the Council that they do not support the current Civic Quarter plans. They understood how great an asset the market is and how important it is to the city of Cambridge.

vii.          Reducing the number of permanent stalls to 27 would harm the market.

viii.        Asked for a minimum of 54 permanent stalls as that is how many were needed for the businesses who currently operated on the market five days a week. Some larger businesses used two or three stalls for their products.

ix.           Reasons why gazebos would harm the current businesses on the market included:

a.    There was no guarantee that the Council would employ enough people in the long term to keep putting gazebos up and down. If the Council ran out of money, staff cuts may be made and there would be no stalls to trade on.

b.    The City Council would cease to exist in 2028 and they did not know whether any future unitary authority would continue to support the market project.

c.    Had not been advised about the events that would take place on the market. Did not know when they would happen and how they would affect market trader businesses, so they couldn’t make any plans. Would market traders be cleared out of the market on a regular basis? What time would market trading need to close before evening events? Could market traders survive this loss of income?

d.    Remained concerned about the flimsy nature of the gazebos and if market traders would have a safe electrical supply.

e.    It was not clear how the Council reached a decision to have 27 permanent stalls. The project said this figure had come from monitoring the uptake of stalls over a period of time. The time period was unknown and may have been affected by covid.

f.     The market had been under a cloud of uncertainty for the past 7 years. This has taken its toll on the number of new businesses coming on the market and had caused the market to shrink. Craft people who wanted to trade on the market had been put off by the Civic Quarter proposals. 

x.             Asked for at least 54 permanent stalls and a contract that bound the Council to erecting sufficient stalls for the market.

Councillors debated the issues raised for the allocated 15 minutes.

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources made the following comments in response to the debate:

i.    The Council was committed to having a thriving 7-day a week market. This was the reason why it was investing in its refurbishment.

ii.  The facilities needed improving.

iii. The road surface of the market made accessing the market difficult for those with disabilities.

iv.The anti-social behaviour in the area needed to be addressed.

v.  Was confident a scheme which was satisfactory to all parties could be delivered but this needed to be undertaken by a step-by-step process.

vi.The Council was listening to the concerns raised by the market traders.

vii.   Wanted to breathe fresh life into the market.