Agenda item

Market Trader Fees

To propose a new fee structure for Spalding market traders (report of Environmental Services Manager enclosed).

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the report of the Environmental Services Manager, which laid out details of the proposed new market trader fees which were due to come into effect from 1 December 2020.

 

A previous report, which had been considered by the Cabinet, Performance Monitoring Panel and Council, had outlined the re-opening of markets with significant changes to arrangements following the Covid lockdown, in addition to a recommendation to review the fees traders paid in Spalding.

 

Due to the change in arrangements, a review of the fees, which were higher in Spalding due to the previous stall provision, would be required.  Benchmarking work had been undertaken to understand charges in other local markets, and to establish whether the fees proposed should be reviewed further. 

 

Members considered the report, and the following issues were raised:

 

·         Members asked whether trader representation had been taken into account.

  • Officers responded that traders had been contacted via their representative and had expressed a desire to have fees in line with those charged at other markets.  These views had been considered and the fees proposed had been reduced further due to the contact with traders.

 

·         Why had Spalding market been compared to Kings Lynn market?  Comparisons should be made to other markets in the district instead, such as Holbeach and Long Sutton.

  • Comparisons had firstly been made with markets in Lincolnshire, and then markets outside of the County, in order to get a fuller picture.

 

·         It was suggested that Spalding market holders pay the same rate per stall as traders did in Holbeach and Long Sutton.  Councillor Newton commented that the traders had recommended that they pay 51p per foot until the end of the financial year.  There were two options within the report and it was suggested that members consider a third point – that when charging was considered again in December, that all South Holland market traders paid the same.

  • Officers responded that parts 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of the report made reference to responses from representatives. The amount of 51p had been added as an option as a point of comparison.

 

·         If charging for markets at Spalding was to be the same as Holbeach and Long Sutton, would subsidised parking also apply?

  • Officers responded that this would be for the Cabinet to consider.

 

·         It was suggested that fees could be put on hold for the remainder of the financial year, and that a full review of market sustainability and pricing could be undertaken as part of the Town Centre Improvement Plans.

 

·         Members questioned what the timeframe was for the Town Centre Improvement Plans for Holbeach and Spalding?

  • Officers responded that both Plans had been ratified in October 2019, and work on the initiative had started with an event at the South Holland Centre in February 2020.  The Plan was not to initiate a regeneration project of the towns, rather it was considering improvements and the Pride initiative.  Markets would be included as part of the work, but not a large scale regeneration.  There had been a pause in work during the Covid period however a steering group had now been set up, which would review the plan to ensure that it was still relevant and had the required impact.  A meeting was to be held at the end of September to go through the first part of the plan, and markets would be discussed. 

 

Councillor Newton proposed that the Panel vote on a third option (for submission to the Cabinet) – that Spalding market traders be charged the same amount per foot as stall holders at Holbeach and Long Sutton markets.  Councillor Walsh seconded the proposal.  The Panel voted on the proposal, and it was defeated.

 

AGREED:

That following consideration by the Policy Development Panel, market fees for Spalding, as detailed within the report, be reconsidered by the Cabinet, in line with the benchmarking exercise that had been undertaken. 

Supporting documents: