Over 100 people, including Market traders, Green councillors and Gina Dowding, Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Lancaster and Fleetwood, marched on Morecambe Town Hall earlier today, part of a wider bid to save Lancaster Market from closure.
Market trader Peter Corker personally handed a petition of some 13,000 signatures to Council leader Stuart Langhorn objecting to the proposals (pictured above, photo courtesy “Zoe C”).
“It’s great to see so many people on the march supporting the market,” commented Gina Dowding. It’s also good news that the other parties appear to be doing a u-turn.”
The Conservatives and Labour also chose to oppose the proposal from the Council’s Cabinet which included plans for the Market building to be turned over to a single retailer and the relocation of existing stall holders in the face of mounting costs for the rent on the building.
“It’s a pity,” she adds, “that just two weeks ago all the parties apart from the Greens appeared ready to sell the market off for good. The Greens in Lancaster have been committed to the market for decades.”
We’ll bring you the outcome of today’s meeting, which was also discussing local community pools and cuts to the Dukes, as soon as we can.
Pictured above: Gina Dowding and Market Trader Peter Corker on Morecambe Town Hall steps.
Related News items elsewehre…
• The Morecambe Visitor: Market Madness
• The Morecambe Visitor: Council’s ‘golden hand-shake’ could be risky business
• Lancashire Evening Post: Oppostion mounts over market closure plan
It is all well and good to say "keep the market", but nobody seems to comment on the £500,000 a year cost of keeping the present arrangements. There are several alternatives, and (apart from the Conservatives, who put forward no constructive proposals at all) all parties are actively searching for workable answers.
Michael Mumford, Bowerham (and frequent user of the market)
Roger Mace replies to Michael as follows:
My former colleague Michael Mumford falls into the trap of ignoring inconvenient facts.
The Conservative amendment to the City's budget was tabled at the Council meeting on 3 March and was the first amendment tabled. Far from "putting forward no constructive proposals at all" the Conservatives proposed:-
That Council
1) notes that Lancaster Market is a vital part of the fabric of the town, but that the deficit arising from its operation is currently about 6% of the District's Council Tax revenue
2) notes that the current level of deficit is unsustainable, and not good value for the Council Tax payers in the district
3) notes the need to reduce or eliminate this deficit
4) resolves that a final Council decision on any budgetary implications outside the budget and policy framework be deferred in order to provide time for the Lancaster Market Tenants Association to make their own proposals for the reduction of the deficit for example by paying a full rent and running the market themselves and for negotiation on their proposals to take place, leading to a further report to Council by 31 March 2010 for possible implementation not later than 31 March 2011.
5) resolves that no offer be made to an incoming single trader for either the ground floor alone or for the whole building unless such offer includes safeguards to protect council tax payers against the possibility of default or early termination of any new lease.
6) approves recommendations 2 to 4 on page 10 of the agenda "as amended" for the above.
proposed by Cllr J. R. Mace
seconded by Cllr Susie Charles
Let it be clear, nothing has been won; we must not forget that all other options are still on the table. The council has given the traders a relatively short period of time to devise a business plan, even with input from NABMA, these things take time. I think this is somewhat unfair as council officers have had years to look at different management models, received pay checks all the way and abysmally produced nothing. However, the bonus is that we are on the verge of election and if it were a 12-month delay, the parties would rapidly lose interest.
I was astounded on reading the councils latest statement. Stuart Langhorne’s comments regarding 'fault' particularly stood out. The actions of the City Council from the creation of the new build to the present day have clearly caused the current deficit. We do not need a further statement that includes full denial of council responsibly, we do not need to be told that it is not the trader’s fault – of course it isn't. As usual, we do need to find a resolution to clear up this council mess, as they apparently cannot to do it on their own.
A plan should be put forward by the traders that requires investment from the council. Only as a last resort, if investment does not have any effect, should traders consider movement onto one floor. After researching other traditional markets the only sensible option is to keep traders on the bottom floor and allow the council to let the top to a single retailer. You must consider the two groups who typically use the market place, those with young children and elderly persons. To house yourself out of the prime location of the bottom floor loses you passing trade and creates access difficulties. To lose trade from the main market doors is not a viable business option.