The community services scrutiny committee yesterday approved a proposal to "bring charges into line with other markets" by introducing a range of new charges.
I'll borrow Jon Vale's summary of the changes, and link to his write-up of the meeting before giving my perspective.
Read more: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Traders-damning-assessment-Cambridge-market-rent/story-28944977-detail/story.html#ixzz43GGMkYng
Follow us: @CambridgeNewsUK on Twitter | cambridgenews on Facebook
I've tried to speak to a good number of the traders in advance of the meeting, to speak up for them as ward councillor, and to try to put a true account of the situation forward. While this has been difficult, I've certainly spoken to a lot more than the 27 out of 195 traders who responded to the consultation
(reference: section 4f http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s33263/Market%20Report.pdf)
The responses were more diverse than I expected, but there were themes that came through clearly.
1. The council don't speak to us, they just make the changes they want to make. Many traders weren't sure what the four market officers did.
2. Many traders have been working there for decades, it's a family business and a livelihood
3. Traders nearly always leave their pitch in a better state than they find it - it is often covered in all manner of mess at 6am in the morning when they arrive
4. Maintenance is also neglected, the cobblestones are a trip hazard, the canopies let in rain, the fountain is tatty and disused. A trader brings in flowers to plant in the soil in the fountain to try and make the centrepiece look tolerably attractive
5. The market is half-empty during the week, visitors can't tell if it's in the process of closing down.
6. Proceeds are down - it's hard to make a living when there are so many high street shops undercutting them and the markets team do very little promotion on their behalf
7. There are no official numbers for the stalls, and no map, so it can be difficult for visitors to find what they're looking for even if they know it's there
8. Charging 7 pounds per pitch for hot food is quite unfair, since it will put some traders out of business, and doesn't correspond very well to the energy use or the waste impact of the stalls affected
Some traders were keen to see a radical revamp of the market, some were keen that it stayed as it is and that rates remained low. Some wanted to bring cheap car parking back and improve vehicle access, some wanted to make the area more pedestrian and cycle friendly. Some traders were keen on a more extensive roof covering, some were not.
This just makes the importance of genuine consultation more clear. The market team hold a weekly surgery on a Friday which is intended to gather feedback from the traders, but this is an example of a strategy that works for the officers but not for the traders. A small percentage of the traders are actually in the marketplace on a Friday, and some of those who do come in are unable to leave their stall because they run it on their own.
Perhaps it changes to different days sometimes, but you would expect to be able to find this out by looking on the council website, where there is no mention of it.
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/market-and-street-trading-licences
There is an issue with the statistics on occupancy which were provided with the proposal to the scrutiny committee as well. It paints a picture of a healthy market which is always full, which is at odds with the comments of the traders.
(reference: section 3.3 http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s33263/Market%20Report.pdf)
The discrepancy seems to be because traders are frequently paying for weekday stalls which they don't intend to use, because it gives them more power to get the more desirable stalls at the weekends and in the summer. Empty, paid up, stalls are good for income, they're even good for sustainability, but they seem like a waste and a disservice to the traders who are turning up. In fairness, the restructure of rates through the week may do something to address the weekend rates which don't follow the "market value", to use the word in quite a different context. The fact remains that the rules are not working, and the officers have brought some misleading statistics to a scrutiny committee.
What else? The report to the committee also mentions some other markets around the UK where rates are higher. This is intended to give a sense of context, and encourage the committee to bring the charge level with other marketplaces.
(reference: appendix 2 http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s33266/Appendix%202%20Market%20Operators%20Comparison.pdf)
It's good research and helpful to provide data for comparison, but seems a bit selective. It doesn't acknowledge the other factors that affect the ability of traders to do business. It doesn't mention how much easier it is for visitors to park at rural markets. It does mention in the small print that Northampton marketplace offers reduced rates over the winter, but makes no mention of offering the same benefit. It doesn't mention the fact that some of these markets have enjoyed major regeneration projects which make them more attractive to visitors and residents.
Norwich marketplace was redeveloped in 2006, believing that pods of four stalls with enclosing walls was right for the area. The Norwich Guildhall offers an elevated view of the marketplace, and indeed it looks modern and vibrant, although of course the same approach is not right for Cambridge. Kingston Upon Thames marketplace was redeveloped in 2014 and includes water, electricity and gas supplies, recognising that gas is the best form of energy for stalls which prepare hot food.
(reference: https://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200170/kingston_town_neighbourhood/855/kingston_ancient_market_place/4)
So it seems only fair to me that if the market is squeezed further and further, that something should be given back to traders, at last. Some of the proposals for restructuring the rates make sense, the proposals for charging £7 for hot food and removing the holiday allowance don't really. But these have gone through now and will go into effect soon. I would have liked investment to go into the market before this happened, but I'll do my best to make sure it goes in now to soften the blow.
Regeneration of the Cambridge markets would not just benefit the traders but would benefit residents and local businesses. If it goes ahead, then the emphasis should be on reducing harmful impact to traders while works are done. and doing a proper consultation, rather than the half-consultations which have taken place recently. By blogging and leafletting about this, I'm hoping to draw attention to it so that participation is much higher than it has been, from all stakeholders.
People in the city should be aware of the work that Cambridge Past Present and Future have been doing to try and provide leadership and to build consensus around the future of the market square.
Having spoken to the person leading the project, Helen Bradbury, I am certain that there has been an attempt to include people in the process rather than to exclude people, it is just difficult to reach as many people as you would like. That's why I'd like the city council to work with Cambridge PPF on another round of consultations which considers the intersecting desires that people have for the marketplace.
People should also be aware of the report done by the Judge Business School which includes research about how the market square is perceived, including quotes from respondents such as "sinister", "unsafe" and "the biggest lavatory in Cambridge". It talks about refreshing the cobblestones, restoring the fountain to working order, and moving it to create an open public space which gets some sunshine, at the North side of the market. The same number of stalls would be kept, and facilities and accessibility would be improved. I will link to this report as soon as I'm able to, I don't think it's online yet. People need the benefit of looking at it directly to make their minds up.
This kind of revenue stream is going to be increasingly important, since the 2016 budget has a very vicious clause which says that councils will basically have to sort themselves out for money by 2020.
(reference: http://www.thecanary.co/2016/03/16/osbornes-budget-contains-nasty-surprise-local-services)
This makes the project look quite hard to ignore. I would have liked the report to say more about the local economy, because I think this a key point. The marketplace helps to keep local goods and local money in circulation, which provides resilience against any significant economy or fuel shocks. The supermarkets and high street shops have very little local interest, and are likely to let us down as soon as things start to look difficult.
I would have also liked the report to say more about the opportunities to make the market "greener". I think it would be possible to fit lightweight solar PV covers on the canopies, guttering to collect and store rainwater to use for cleaning, and to introduce biodegradable and ethically sourced packaging which is available to traders as part of a package. I'd like to do more to encourage sale of local produce. I think there is a big discussion to be had about the future of vehicle access to the market, and the opportunity of using bicycle couriers to bring goods in, but I expect some strong responses from traders about that. Discussion and transparency are good things.
I've been told that a project along these lines could cost anywhere from £3.0m to £5.5m and it's clear that the council doesn't have that kind of money sitting around. It could invest a large amount of the general fund in this, but it would leave very unsafe levels of reserves. So some sort of partnership would be necessary. The report suggests that a return of 5% could be found, which again needs to be researched and verified by officers, but it is apparently too low for more of the typical big investors who look for a return of 10% or more. To people with small amounts of savings in building societies and ISAs, it may look like a very good return on investment!
So it looks like the way forward is to look for smaller, local, partners who have an interest in the market square. The Business Improvement District and the university are two obvious candidates. I'd also like the council to investigate a community share option scheme, similar to those used by the Save Our Space campaign and the Reach solar farm. I believe that facilities which are owned by the community tend to be run better and promote better values than those with private investment.
(references: http://www.sturton.org/ and http://reachsolarfarm.co.uk/)
Councillor Benstead, the Deputy Mayor, commented that a project to regenerate the marketplace had been on the cards in the 90s, when the council had much less money but no overall control. It very nearly moved into construction, but the Lib Dems and the Conservatives were able to block the investment and divert the money away from the market. Labour do have overall control now though, so the fate of the market is in their hands. Councillor O'Reilly says that she'd love to redevelop the marketplace, and I believe her, I'll be continuing to push for it to happen in our lifetime and to work for everybody.
