(a) Call-in regarding Gainsborough Market Proposals
Minutes:
The Committee gave consideration to a call-in request received from four Members of the Challenge and Improvement Committee and were requested to determine a way forward in accordance with the agreed process.
Prior to opening the debate, the Director of Resources outlined the call–in process to the Committee as set out in the report.
It was noted that the call-in had been received on 25 September and stated that the four members were of the belief that the decision had not been taken in accordance with the following principles of Article 12
(e) a presumption in favour of openness
(f) contribute to the well-being of the area; and
(g) clarity of aims and desired outcome.
The Committee’s role was now to hear evidence from the four signatories supporting the call-in, in order to determine whether they agreed that the decision, taken by the Prosperous Communities Committees in relation to the Gainsborough Market Proposals, was not taken in accordance with the principles stated, and if so set out their recommendations back to Prosperous Communities Committee on how these could be achieved. Alternatively the Committee could decide to not support the call-in and as such the original decision would become effective.
The Monitoring Officer, then read out an extract from the Council’s Constitution regarding Members involvement in the call-in during which it was noted that any member who had taken part in the original decision, now under scrutiny, were only permitted to attend this part of the meeting for the purpose of giving evidence and answering questions. They were not permitted to take part in the debate or the vote, best practice would also be for them to remove themselves from the meeting during the debate and vote. Two Members identified themselves as affected. It was stressed that it was important that the Committee firstly heard the evidence from the four Members and any responses offered, prior to entering debate and decision making, in order that the conflicted Councillors did not take part in the decision.
Those signatories to the call-in where then asked to address the Committee during which the following points were noted. There was a belief that the Gainsborough Market was one of the highest priorities for the people of Gainsborough, feedback given to local Councillors from local residents was that they wanted a decent market, thriving town centre and a variety of outlets to make the town an attractive offer. The Councillors were of the view that this matter and a call for action and change had been on the agenda for around 5-6 years and yet the decision made by the Prosperous Communities Committee would not result in change. There was a view that the report on the whole was disappointing, low in terms of aspiration and the option selected, Option 3, offered no real opportunity for future growth, development and change. 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 as they offered different thinking and that the Trader Co-operative and Market Federation representatives should have been afforded the opportunity to present their business case in full to the Committee.
The blanket statement “Markets are declining” was also disputed by the call-in signatories, again it was suggested that if the Trader Co-operative and Market Federation representatives had been afforded the opportunity to pitch to the Policy Committee, this would have allowed the Committee to hear about the differing alternative offers which were in operation across the country and seeing successes. A number of local successful markets were cited. It was considered that co-operatives brought with them the buy-in from trader and thus in turn attracted more traders. It was suggested that Council’s just did not have the right skills and abilities to operate markets and therefore should be making greater of use of such organisations who had the knowledge, networks and resources, to make the market thrive. They were better at managing markets and enforcing the rules, something, that to date some Councillors considered was still not happening. For this reason there was concern that the Business Plan put forward by the co-operative had been shared with the Committee in its entirety, its content had not been discussed.
The call-in signatories expressed concern that the proposed option, Option 3 was a high risk proposal in terms of delivering results, and that the time line to see a cost neutral position was too long. The growth projections were not far reaching enough and the desired end result, seemed to be to achieve a cost neutral market. It was further questioned who had set the objectives, and that the driver appeared to have been money, when in their view it should have been about growth, development, making a contribution to the well-being of the area and encompassed in the wider holistic approach to the regeneration of Gainsborough as a whole.
The signatories urged for greater collaborative work with external organisations, fair open and transparent consultation in order to achieve outcomes for this priority area for local people. It was suggested that TUPE rules were been used as an excuse to rule out a number of options, when creative HR could easily resolve such matters.
The Monitoring Officer advised that TUPE requirements, were part of national employment law, could not be ignored or waived and would be incumbent upon whoever ran the market in the event that it was not the local authority.
A number of questions pursued and Members were reminded that if now having heard from the signatories, they wished to debate the matter and come to a resolution, those conflicted Councillors would not be permitted to take part further.
Note: Councillors Trevor Young and Lesley Rollings, left the Chamber at this point in the meeting, in light of their conflict having taken part in the decision made by the Prosperous Communities Committee and did not return to the meeting
Councillor Strange also left the meeting at this point as he was feeling unwell.
Debate ensued and remaining Members considered the information they had heard. A number of Councillors repeatedly offered alternative solutions that they thought should be investigated. Again the Committee were reminded of their role. It was not in their gift to decide how the market should be operated. They needed to determine whether having heard the evidence from the signatories, whether they supported the call-in, and if so make recommendations back to the Prosperous Communities Committee on how those principles, identified through the call-in process could be better achieved, those being as set out in Section 1.7 of the report.
Further discussion ensued, with a Member of the Committee being of the view that Option 3 seemed a longer term, common sense approach which was more appropriate. It would also in time address double taxation issues. Furthermore, the comparative Markets which had been offered seemed unfair ones and as such he would not be supporting the call-in.
However others indicated that collaborative and partnership working was important, as well as supporting the principles of Localism, on the face of it growth and development seemed to have been overlooked and the driver appeared to be cost cutting. Whilst Option 3 implied there would be an element of collaborative working going forward, there was view that greater detail of the form this would take was required in order to give assurance that it would result in change.
The Committee sought indication from the Team Manager for Operational Services, as to the detail of Option 3, what if offered and why it had been selected over other options posed.
In response Members were advised that meetings had been held and consultation undertaken with Local Traders, Officers had also met with representatives from the Markets Federation and the proposed Trader Co-operative. A health check of the Market had been undertaken and legal advice sought. This had resulted in 10 options being identified, all of which were detailed in the report and had been appraised against set criteria. This options appraisal had identified Option 3 as the best option to deliver the brief.
The brief 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
The reasons for Option 9 having been dismissed were set out to the Committee and included
Furthermore the Team Manager advised that Option 3 did aim to address collaborative working and management and enforcement of the market, something it had been acknowledged was lacking in recent years. There was a proposed new post and the remit of which was outlined to the Committee. This was a much wider role with an emphasis on collaboration, one of the key tasks for this new post would be to establish a stakeholder 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.
Officers accepted that the growth aspiration was low but sustainable. This was a longer term, common sense approach which aimed to ensure the safeguarding of the market, with a view to growing the market in collaborative way in coming years. In response to questions Officers were confident that the Market could reach a break-even point in 5 years and that the projections were realistic, yet still challenging given the times, but sustainable.
Members offered further scenarios which they considered should be investigated but were again reminded of their role and the call-in process.
Having heard all of the information on being put to the vote it was
RESOLVED that:
(a) it be agreed that the decision taken by the Prosperous Communities Committee was not taken in accordance with the principles set out in 1.7 of the report, namely: -
o presumption in favour of openness
o contribute to the well-being of the area; and
o clarity of aims and desired outcome.
In Light of this it was further RESOLVED that: -
(b) it be RECOMMENDED to the Prosperous Communities Committee that: -
(i) Options 6, 8 and 9 be further reviewed, with a greater emphasis on the growth and development of the market, as the Challenge and Improvement Committee are of the view that they potentially offer a better contribution to the well-being of the area; and
(ii) they request further detailed information from Officers regarding the nature of the proposed joint committee contained within Option 3, expanding on the nature of this, its makeup and how collaboration growth and development would be achieved, by way of assurance.