Minutes:
In April 2016, Prosperous Communities Committee had resolved to explore the options for improving Gainsborough’s street market in order to achieve a cost neutral solution. As part of this research, officers had explored a range of delivery options to ensure that the decision-making process was robust and lawful; whilst having regard to the objective of operating the market at zero cost to the Council.
Members gave consideration to a report which outlined proposals for the future restructure and delivery of Gainsborough’s street market. The report outlined the current operation and performance of the market, together with some objectives for the future market operation which sought to address the weaknesses with the current operation and capitalise on the opportunities to grow and diversify the offer, these being: -
1. To reduce the subsidy and deliver a cost-neutral market
2. To operate an efficient and effective market; where the rules are enforced, fees are collected, trader enquiries are dealt with promptly and trader satisfaction is high
3. To grow the number of traders and to diversify the ‘offer’
4. To improve the appearance of the market by ensuring an attractive stall layout (which is conducive to trade for local businesses as well as traders)
5. To improve the visibility of the market through effective signage and the regeneration of key routes and sites within the town centre
6. To make imaginative use of the Market Place for events and activities alongside and in addition to the street market
Section 5 of the report detailed a comprehensive options appraisal for future delivery which would help deliver the above objectives. A total of 10 options had been appraised, 5 which would see the operation stay in-house and 5 which could see the market outsourced or operated by a third party. Each option had an Officer recommendation contained within, and Option 3 was being proposed, as the best to meet the objectives established.
Lengthy and detailed discussion ensued with opposing views expressed. A number of Members did not consider the proposed option went far enough. There was also a view that it did not offer best value nor that it would lead to the best outcomes. It was suggested that some of the other options contained within the report should have been more prevalent.
Members referred to a document which had been tabled, and sought clarity as to its purpose. A Member indicated that it was the Business Plan from the GMC and that he had circulated it for Members information. He was of the view that this should have been included within the report in its entirety and have been more prevalent in the main committee report
In response to Members’ questions, Officers confirmed that they had had sight of the document, and the reasons for it not being the recommended option at this stage were clearly set out and evaluated at on page 10 of the report. Officers were of the view that the proposed option offered more resilience than the Business Plan from GMC, citing a number of scenarios to support this view, nor had TUPE requirements been taken into consideration. The Chief Operating Officer advise members that they should disregard the circulated paper and take a decision based on the information contained in the report as this had taken account of the information contained in this paper.
Again responding to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that TUPE was a legal burden, contained within employment law and could not be mitigated against. The TUPE requirements must be met by any outside operator taking on a council function to be operated by transferred council staff.
A number of Members expressed their frustration that the proposal just did not move the market on far enough and without different thinking nothing would change. Some Members’ questioned whether Council’s had the right skills and abilities to operate markets and therefore should be making greater of use of such organisations as the GMC who had the knowledge, networks and resources, to make the market thrive. The timeline was also of concern.
In responding to Members questions Officers outlined the proposed new posts function, stressing this was a much wider role with an emphasis on collaboration, acknowledging this had been missing in recent years. One of the key tasks for this new post would be to establish a stakeholder holder committee, to gather views and engage partners and to investigate alternative options, including some of those which had been suggested throughout the course of the debate, such as flea markets and antique markets.
In contrast, other Members acknowledged that the market was key to the wider regeneration of Gainsborough and in particular the Market Place area, and that a longer term, common sense approach was more appropriate if it ensured the safeguarding of the market. The vision of positive management and enforcement going forward was welcomed and had been missing in recent years.
In light of the differing views expressed a Member proposed an alternative motion, this being that Option 9 should be further explored in the first instance with a further report expanding on the evaluation of this option being brought back to a subsequent meeting of the Committee. Officers indicated the potential delay this would incur, but having been moved and seconded the motion fell.
The recommendations as written in the report were then moved and seconded and on being put to the vote it was: -
RESOLVED that:
(a) Option 3 as outlined in the report and the appended Business Plan be approved;
(b) that Members review progress against the Business Plan targets in April 2017 and thereafter on an annual basis; and
(c) a formal public consultation exercise for the future delivery of the market be undertaken following the implementation of Option 3.
Note: Councillors Trevor Young and Lesley Rollings requested that their vote against the above decision be recorded.