Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 21 2013, 12:20 PM

As we'll be having an election for the town council in a few weeks time I thought we might have a bit of a delve into what the town council does, and how efficiently it does it. It's been my complaint that our town councillors don't scrutinise the council's services - neither the Lib Dems nor the Tories - and that the council runs itself for its own benefit. That's bad for local democracy, and acutely bad if you get on the wrong side of the council, but it also makes for poor public services and high taxes. http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=2285&view=findpost&p=79583.

So today the spotlight falls on the Charter Market service.


The Charter Market is run by the town council at an annual net loss of £51,476. The independent market stalls pay rent for their pitch and sell a variety of stuff, most of which is also available locally. Several decades ago market day would have been a busy shopping day but supermarkets made the traditional market obsolete. Successful town markets have reinvented themselves as speciality markets, but under the town council's unimaginative management the Newbury Charter Market has declined and is now all but moribund. The number of stalls and variety of goods declines every year, and with each departure the market becomes less appealing still.

If the Charter Market were a commercial business it would have ceased trading a decade ago when it became financially unsustainable, but the town council choose to run it at a loss in order to protect council jobs and prestige.

The market generates a revenue of £30k from the stall holders, which is only a third of the revenue the market made ten years ago, but the running costs are £36k, and then there is council staff costs of £21k on top of that, and a further burden of £27k of administrative overheads.

The running costs are £6,000 for the management contract (an increase of 11% on last year), £1,852 to lease the market facilities (whatever facilities they are), £7,700 rates, £1,200 for electricity, £5,000 for repairs and maintenance, £9,000 for a slush fund to underwrite the new self-sweeping arrangement, £330 for a trade body subscription, £5,000 to promote the market (£3,000 more than last year), and £130 for security.

As with all of the council services, the staff costs are inexplicably high. The market operates twice a week and the market management is contracted to Town and Country Caterers (I don't know who they are, I can't find a company registered with that name at Companies House), so there is very little for the council staff to do, but yet they spend enough on staffing to employ a full-time local government officer.

So this is £51,476 of precept-payer's money spent on a non-service. The market is just somewhere to buy general stuff, and all the stuff is available elsewhere - at shops that aren't receiving a town-council subsidy. It might well be nice to have a market, just like it might be nice to have a range of any shops, and if the market could be financially sustainable run by a commercial organisation then we should let someone have a go right away, but there is absolutely no justification for spending £51k on a service that benefits no one but the council staff who provide it. This is local government parasitism at it's absolute worse.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 21 2013, 12:51 PM

It's not often I agree with Newbury Town Council, but this news release from Vickers, Csala, McGarvey, and Day from a couple of years ago is spot-on:
"http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/news/useitorloseit.pdf".

Lose it then - you did promise.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 21 2013, 01:02 PM

It might be useful to explain how much the costs is on the annual council tax bill? Perhaps show a running total of the cost to the tax payer of the council's services too? I would imagine some people may or may not be surprised at the cost.

I would have also thought that if the administrative overhead could be brought down, then the rent could be proportionately dropped, therefore maybe encouraging more diverse stalls? But as you have already hinted, we have become conditioned by supermarkets to expect certain prices that 'fresh produce' providers are unable to compete with - 'so back to the horse meat it is then'.

Posted by: badmummajamma Mar 21 2013, 01:33 PM

I have to say that I agree with SK on most things and wholeheartedly agree with the previous topic about Civic Duties (get rid of all of them and finance the historic/customs preservation through charitable donations if necessary), but I have to disagree to some extent about the loss of the market.

There are two separate issues here - The need/desire for a market and the cost of providing that market - and I don't think they can be lumped together.

The root of the problem is, much like civic duties, the sheer cost of the red tape the market has become wrapped up in. Take the town council out of the equation and let the market self manage (Blasphemy), and it wont have any choice but to be profitable.

I also agree that it needs more imaginative management - particularly in respect of encouraging enterprising young stall-holders/craftsmen to open stalls on a short-term basis through financial incentives. Not that I've tried, but I imagine the market to be quite insular and off-putting to those who fancy "having a go" at setting up a table to sell their pies on a Saturday morning.

While I would agree that there are some rubbish stalls, there are some good ones and it just feels as though it needs a bit more critical mass to get going. I also think it's in the wrong place, but that's a whole other debate.

Posted by: Ron Mar 21 2013, 02:11 PM

I just get the impression that this is all a which hunt because someone has been upset by the council. If you are that much against what's going on then get in there and sort it!!

Posted by: user23 Mar 21 2013, 02:28 PM

There's an election soon so he'll have the chance to.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 21 2013, 02:43 PM

Even if that's the case, given our present dire economic state, and both main parties in West Berkshire say it is, this should be under very close scrutiny anyway. The 'upset' is that those elected on broad manifestos to enhance efficiency and secure economies are manifestly failing to do that. So its a matter of holding those we elect to account; just as we should with anyone else we have working for us.

Very few of us deliberately waste money, why should we let those we elect?

Over the years, all major reform has been driven by people abused by the system. Your laissez-faire argument would have us still sending boys up chimneys.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 21 2013, 02:53 PM

Lets finish it.

Yes, its quaint and old fashioned, but no longer fits how we live today. Remember, this is market forces for real; if there was a demand, stall holders would be fighting for a pitch. They aren't; end of story!

The council and its officers have tried to drum up support, but it hasn't worked. The money spent subsidising this clearly failing private enterprise would be much better spent making good the cuts to mental health and old people's services. I do know that these are WBC responsibilities, but the cash take is from one source.

So, apply rule one in the law of dead horses; if you find yourself on one, jump off.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 21 2013, 03:01 PM

I'm afraid the election will sort nothing.
The waste will continue no matter who is voted in.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 21 2013, 04:15 PM

Even if he entered and won, he would have no power to make any change.

Posted by: badmummajamma Mar 21 2013, 04:20 PM

He'd have my vote.

Posted by: user23 Mar 21 2013, 04:31 PM

What a defeatist attitude.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 21 2013, 04:56 PM

But true!

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 21 2013, 04:58 PM

Quite right Andy unless we can field several more like minded bodies the same as Simon then it is a waste of time.
Although we are supposed to be a democracy then the old guard are kept in place through apathy - the reason being nothing changes so no point in voting. The minority rule through being elected by a minority?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 21 2013, 05:06 PM

It as a fact.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 21 2013, 05:07 PM

I might see if I can stand in Wash Common next time round, but I'm supporting David Yates and Charlie Farrow for the by-election. That's not to suggest that they agree with me, but they're independent from the Con-Dem establishment and they both have minds of their own. What you say is very true, unless you have the support of other councillors you can't even get something on the agenda to give it a public airing, so my route-one approach won't work inside the council and it will take people with a bit more subtlety than me as councillors, but I still hope I can influence the debate from outside the tent.

Posted by: user23 Mar 21 2013, 05:32 PM

Only if you believe it to be true.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 21 2013, 05:37 PM

One independent on NTC would have the casting vote whenever the two main parties disagreed - which may not be often, but would give an independent an unusual amount of power at present.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 21 2013, 05:54 PM

That of course makes it an important election issue.

Posted by: John C Mar 21 2013, 07:05 PM

NTC have been trying to kill the market for years and nearly managed it when the resurfaced the market place with the so called cafe/bistro area to save having a vastly empty pedestrian area that can not be used for parking any more as its in a pedestrian area but does the Charter market only makes a loss on the say so of the been counters at NTC in that any administrator can put so many hours allegedly to charter market work when they are not necessarily doing charter market work

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 21 2013, 07:08 PM

As already mentioned, the only time any one councillor has any power is when they have a casting vote. That is our democracy at work.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 21 2013, 07:28 PM

I'm agnostic about the market, but I very rarely use it. If mine and others £3/4 keeps a few people in (council) jobs, I'm not bothered, although that isn't to say their effort couldn't be put to better use!

Posted by: user23 Mar 21 2013, 07:34 PM

This is very likely, given the current political makeup of the Town Council.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 21 2013, 07:53 PM

You might have power over an agenda (where there is political dead-lock), but you have no power to set it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 21 2013, 08:03 PM

It would be a serious business if someone in the council was actively cooking the books to make it look like people were working on one service when they weren't. Whatever service you look at there is a bewilderingly high staff cost. The charter market could easily be run with half a man-day of council time per week because it's not like the council set the stalls out or anything, that's all done by the stall-holders and the market management company, so what the council find to occupy their time is difficult to guess, and for every hour of service staff time there's broadly the same amount of back-office administration staff time too loading the overheads.

There seems to be a reasonable possibility that with some imaginative commercial retail management that a market of one sort or another could thrive in Newbury and become an asset to the town, but that's never going to happen with the dead-hand of the council at the controls. If the council were to bug-out and leave the field free for some commercial enterprise to run the market free from interference then not only would it inject some new interest into the town centre, it would also save us a few quid on our council tax. Bonnet de douche, every one's a winner.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 21 2013, 08:03 PM

* double post *

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 21 2013, 08:12 PM

You might possibly hope to exercise the casting vote on such weighty matters of state as the colour of the NTC grit bins.

However, as a democratically elected town councillor you would have a legitimate mandate and platform to criticise the council for keeping your ideas off the agenda, but any councillor not willing to toe the council establishment line should prepare themselves for the dirty tricks because the council does not like to be criticised.

Posted by: user23 Mar 21 2013, 09:33 PM

Stop making excuses. If one doesn't get off their bottom and actually stand up for what they believe in then they probably deserve what they get.

One would certainly have more 'power' if that's what they're after than from posting long whiney monologues on a little read Internet forum.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 21 2013, 09:56 PM

I am sure that Simon has more power posting 'long whiney monologues on a little read Internet forum' than he would by standing for election, that is for sure. His posts make for some uncomfortable reading, for some. Simon also has a long tradition of standing up and working for what he believes, so for you to sit at home (or where ever you might post from) and suggest how he should do things is simply churlish.

Anyway, his post, which I find quite interesting despite not always agreeing with it, is a legitimate topic. You could always challenge it if you wish, rather than trying to deflect it in your customary and unhelpful manner.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 21 2013, 10:02 PM

The market used to be a thriving event with traders coming from far and wide. The gathering in the Market Place has diminished significantly, but I notice some stalls are establishing in Bart St....
Why make the main market look smaller and dilute the customer gathering?
As for Simon's figures, has anyone sought any verification of them from the Council?
I don't say his figures are wrong, but neither do I know them to be right. His habit of adding window dressing with his terminology does not make the figures more likely to be correct..... But some may feel 'dared' to doubt them.... The income from the market is simple, the cost of the market seems masked with smoke and mirrors with overheads, plus admin cost, plus running cost. To me that is confusing.

Lastly, some residents may say the market is a feature worth paying for, as with the mayoral robes, the town hall etc.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 21 2013, 11:02 PM

Asking the council for a press statement denouncing my "misinformation" as they like to call it won't help you find the truth. What we need is for someone from the council to stand up here and defend their position, but they won't come out of their bunker. It was for publishing the service accounts with the full costs and overheads exposed that I was declared to be a Vexatious Complainant - a humiliating and degrading experience as I stood their asking my question in a public council meeting. Apportion overheads in order to present a true unit cost is accounting 101 and standard commercial practice, but the council absolutely hate to see the overheads included, and they also hate seeing the full costs in their £tens of thousands rather then the palatable £10s per tax-payer.

You have as much access to the accounts as I have, so if you're looking for validation then go through them yourself.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 21 2013, 11:30 PM

I am not a resident of the NTC fiefdom

Posted by: newres Mar 22 2013, 05:58 AM

Hear, hear. Although I do think this is too personal for Simon.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 22 2013, 09:51 AM

It is, and it gets in the way of the message and makes me easy bait for apologists. I would really like to see someone else challenging the council so I could take a rest from it.

There was a time that I wasn't so bothered that the council was unchallenged; I was aware of one councillor who was abusing their position to victimise someone they'd fallen out with and I could see how the council establishment closed ranks and allowed it to happen without demur, but it wasn't me getting bullied and perhaps I should have kept well out of it. But I involved myself and I experienced first hand how remorselessly vindictive this self-serving council is, and that unresolved violation has left me seething with indignation.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 22 2013, 09:52 AM

Was it too personal for Mrs Thatcher, or Mr Churchill, or Mr Attlee, who were all conviction politicians, arguably driven by a personal issue? Or would you rather have bland, vanilla ones who just want power for their own vanity?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 22 2013, 10:03 AM

I'm sure they do, but are they willing to pay for this and then not complain about cuts to mental health budgets, failure to mend roads quickly, reductions in support for old people etc. etc.

Posted by: Bartholomew Mar 22 2013, 12:44 PM

I was actively involved in the market a few years ago both as a stallholder and as part of the market committee. I watched as the numbers of customer and consequently the number of traders reduced until it was clear that there was no economic sense for me to continue with it.
So what happened? My view is that both NTC and WBC actively made the market unviable. With the market place initiative that drove away independent non food shops from the area and the rise in parking charges its obvious that the market is now unsustainable. When the market place refurbishment took place it was a major battle to get a decent location for the market and the original council intention was to move it to the parking area behind the museum. Only with a lot of effort was it put in Northbrook Street where the market revenues and number of stall holders increased significantly (as with all retail location is key). I see that now that Northbrook Street is now fully pedestrianised they councils are still refusing to move the market there.

Its clear to me that either the market needs to be revitalised, close or NTC need to move away away from managing it. Its not viable in its current form. I'm not sure of the provisons of the Charter for the market but I think it would be sad to lose a tradition that goes back several hundred years. Personally I believe that it could be commercially viable if managed in a different way and encouraged more diverse traders.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 22 2013, 01:11 PM

The councils are either commercially inept, or they are deliberately trying to destroy the Market. Although I would imagine ebay and other on-line outlets have taken their toll on the Market too. It seems the Market's fortunes seem to fall when the councils decided to revamp the place. Not a good use of £800,000.00 of public money.

If Newbury want a sustainable Market, they will have to move it to the highstreet.

I have an idea... why not move the Market to the highstreet and turn the market Place into a short stay carpark!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 22 2013, 01:25 PM

So as a definite plan, are there any obvious problems with this:

1. Allow the market to go in Northbrook Street.
2. Advertise for interested parties to run the market.
3. The market receives no tax-payer support, and no council interference.

Getting permission from whoever for the market to go in Northbrook Street will be a challenge, but it's not sustainable in the market place, so give the permission-giver the alternative of Northbrook Street or nothing and use the leverage of the colour and interest that a thriving market would bring to the town to encourage the right decision.

As the tax-payer will benefit from having the market taken off NTC's hands it might appropriate to sweeten the handover with some financial support while the market re-established itself, but it should probably be financially independent in the end.

As BIDCo has some excellent retail management experience and has an over-arching brief to make the town centre as appealing as possible to shoppers it might well be worth approaching them to manage the transition from NTC to an independent commercial operator, which might conceivably be BIDCo itself.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 22 2013, 02:06 PM

As none of the above are funded by NTC I don't see the link.......

Posted by: massifheed Mar 22 2013, 02:07 PM

I never liked the market in Northbrook Street. It made the place look cluttered and hard to get by outside Camps as there was so much going on in one place. I'd mind less if the area was fully pedestrianised, then the market could go down the middle of Northbrook street. But as some vehicles need access all the time the market has to be pushed to one side up against the shops.

In any case, a truly sustainable market would work in either location. The trouble as I see it is that the market doesn't have enough to draw people to it. If the market had enough stalls selling things that people really wanted or needed, then they'd walk the couple of hundred yards round from Northbrook street. But it doesn't. There's nothing sold on the market I might need that I can't get from a supermarket with the rest of my shopping.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 22 2013, 03:42 PM

Do vehicles really need to get down Northbrook Street? I can't see why. Busses could stop in the market square and by the clock tower, so that would be enough wouldn't it? If the market traders like Northbrook Street then that's a compelling recommendation for me, and as a vibrant market would benefit the town I think it's worth making some effort to accommodate it.

The more important issue though is the market itself, and to be sustainable it needs to be reinvented as you say. I'm not convinced a general market can compete with supermarkets, but other towns have successful markets of one kind or another and the key would seem to be innovative management, giving the market a distinct and desirable brand, and attracting the right quality and variety of stall holders - just as shoppers aren't going to make the effort for a tired market, neither will stall holders invest their time if the market isn't attracting shoppers, so kick-starting it will take some commercial experience, and hence the need for an experienced commercial operation to manage it, and not the bumbling amateurs at town-hall towers.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 22 2013, 04:44 PM

I would say the onus is for the market traders to first of all make the effort to attract shoppers, rather than wait for shoppers to seek out the market before traders decide whether it's worthwhile investing their time. After all, high street stores recognise the importance of marketing and presenting their shops/products in such a way as to attract shoppers.

I don't see the market as being any different. The other towns that have successful markets have done just as you've mentioned and understood that just pitching up a stall and waiting for trade doesn't work in this day and age.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 22 2013, 05:25 PM

I see the problem like a football club: To win any silverware you need a team of decent players, but to attract decent players you already need to be successful. It's a catch 22.

I'm not sure that you can build a thriving market by leaving it to the traders to attract the shoppers - the success of any one stall depends on the wares the marketeer has for sale and the way she presents and sells them, but the success of the market as a whole depends on the variety, quality, presentation and interest of the market as a whole, and that is uniquely under the control of the market management.

The market management needs to assemble the right kind of stalls which support the market brand and taken together make an interesting place to shop. I have no idea what that brand should be for Newbury and whether enough enthusiastic traders can be found to build the necessary critical mass, and it seems for the available profit margin that it'll be a difficult job finding a market management company that's inventive and imaginative enough to do the job for the money available, but I see that as the only future for the market.

I've had a look about and there are some market managers about, but the management is same-old same-old and as a retail industry market management suffers badly from the fusty inertia that it inevitably rubs off its local government masters. Newbury Market needs an injection of Mary Portas, not Mr Troop.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 22 2013, 05:49 PM

So the only answer to the present situation is to close it. Newbury Town Council have had more than sufficient time to inject new life and all the remedies they have applied have failed. With the present LibDem majority it is highly unlikely that any new or fresh ideas would even get a hearing - that's demonstrably not their way.

As it is, it will collapse anyway, from what I saw Thursday, it wasn't worth several traders while even setting up their stalls. Indeed, arguably the only ones doing any business were the green grocer and the butcher. Both outlets where Newbury would be better off with traditional shops. So closing the thing might well have a beneficial effect by providing an opportunity for a wider range of small shops.

Speaking as a customer, its also hardly in the vanguard of good service - ever tried paying by card? Ever wondered why fresh foodstuffs need to be displayed so fully to the elements? Questioned if the work place smoking rules apply?

No, quite apart from the subsidy, the Market is yesterday.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 22 2013, 06:27 PM

Our current market, as run by NTC, is certainly yesterday, but Newbury could yet have a thriving market that was an asset to the town, and not a drain on its tax-payers.

NTC need to let it go and not get involved at all. It can't survive in their management and they clearly don't have what's needed to reinvent it and run it as a profitable business.

It may well need to relocate to Northbrook Street, though that's not necessary so - if the market could be reinvented so that it was worth going to see and not just worth seeing then the market place may well be the better site.

It needs to be operated by a commercial outfit that can bring some innovative management to the show. It certainly needs to cooperate with BIDCo, but BIDCo might yet be persuaded to manage it themselves as an attraction for the town centre.

If it can't be reinvigorated on those terms then no amount of lamenting the passing of a centuries-old defining feature of our market town will bring it back.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 22 2013, 07:02 PM

Get rid of it and (re)build the Guildhall!

Posted by: newres Mar 22 2013, 07:41 PM

I was thinking more of the damage it would be doing to Simon.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 22 2013, 07:51 PM

It certainly shouldn't need to relocate to Northbrook Street - that's the bit that winds me up. If it was really good it would do well in the Market Place, or anywhere really. As you said, it needs to be good enough that people make a point of going to the market, not just casually browse if they happen to be passing it. That's what I think would happen if it went to Northbrook street. It may add a few more months to its life, but ultimately people would get bored with it being in Northbrook street, just as they appear to have got bored with it where it is. If nothing changes with the way it's run and what it offers then it certainly is doomed, either in the market place, Northbrook street, or anywhere.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 22 2013, 08:09 PM

Location, location, location ... if traders heard that the Market was in the highstreet, it would be easier to attract more, and possibly 'better' stalls.

Posted by: nerc Mar 23 2013, 06:56 AM

The market is in the right location.
The problem seems to be with the management. Town and Country Caterers (the management) is the gentleman who runs the fast food burger van and from experience seems to run a closed shop by not allowing anyone to trade on the market who could possibly be competition to other traders who are established.
I can only assume that the management gets a salary so doesnt really care.
Several years ago the market had a long waiting list and was a thriving place with many different stalls trading each day offering a variety of new stalls.
From my past experience NTC employed a part time manager who was only involved with the market and created a market that was voted local market of the year on at least one occasion.
Due to changes voted by the market traders casual traders were not allowed to just turn up on the day and trade but had to apply via an application form and were then only allowed to trade after beeing vetted by a market panel.
This was the demise of the market as it was.
A charter market is or should be open for anyone to trade on arrival as long as they have the correct insurance and i believe that NTC could be operating this market outside the Market Charter Guidlines.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 23 2013, 07:44 AM

What market charter guidelines?

Posted by: Bartholomew Mar 23 2013, 11:39 AM

So the market's in the right place and its all the market manager's fault from a decade ago that everything's collapsed?

My experience is that the general closure of the market place to traffic and the closure of non food shops in the area means that there is little reason for shoppers to go beyond the bridge in Northbrook Street. The market was viable until the market place revamp and has little to do with a single market manager but more to with country wide trends and specific changes made in Newbury. Arguments about how the market operates are a minor distraction that has little to do with country wide trends.

I've been to Winchester quite often over the last couple of years and have been impressed by the way they put interesting stalls in main pedestrianised street. What stands out to me is how attractive it is and this is to with colourful consistent stalls. The traditional market is still in operation and has moved from the parking area to the pedestrian street next to the Brooks Shopping Centre. In comparison its not as attractive but there is enough footfall for traders to make it viable.
I don't believe that many markets in the UK cannot exist on their own and needs an infrastructure and footfall to make it work and this is particularly true in Newbury. By effectively closing the daytime visitors south of the river the marketplace will always struggle.

Posted by: Bartholomew Mar 23 2013, 11:54 AM

Its worth remembering that market traders don't only trade in Newbury. Most have 5 or 6 different venues and if it isn't worth trading in one town then they go to another.
Its a difficult thing to manage a transient set of traders and it's up to Newbury to make it the place that traders want to come to.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 23 2013, 11:56 AM

So another vote to close.

Retail reality cuts in, Woolworths, HMV, Blockbuster, etc. etc, etc, why should the market be any different? Do we really think that our Town Councillors / Staff have the retail knowledge and savvy to sort this out; when far bigger towns have failed?

Posted by: Bartholomew Mar 23 2013, 12:04 PM

That's one view and I can see the reasons. The other is that if the market can either break even or make some money then it's an added facility that Newbury can offer and keeps a long tradition going. Maybe it just needs a different view and a bit of inventive thought that isn't controlled by bureaucracy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 23 2013, 12:53 PM

Yes, I subscribe to that. It would be good to have a good market, and that might yet be possible with the right management.

I'd not really thought about it before, but there isn't anything much to attract me to the market place and if I'm walking to the high street from the Sainsbury's (free) car park I'm just as likely to walk past the library as I am to walk through the market place.

I can see that putting it in Northbrook Street would serve the market better, but that's not really the issue - the market has to serve Newbury. As has been said, if the market itself can't be revitalised and reinvented then moving it to Northbrook Street will only buy it a couple more years of life at the cost of some inconvenience to the High Street.

If it's to survive the market needs to transform itself into a 21st century retail success, and it will only survive if it can do that - and if it can do that then I suggest it will succeed in the market place just as well as it would in Northbrook Street, with the benefit to the town of revitalising the market place.

The Town Council operate the market at a net loss of £51k with a revenue of £30k, so it would take some really good retail management to turn that around. Maybe it's possible, if we can find a management company that thinks like Amazon rather than HMV, but maybe it's not possible.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 23 2013, 01:38 PM

I'm struggling a bit to see why it costs anything to run the market. I understand that if there is a market manager, his salary needs to be paid but as the market is only operational for two days a week, that doesn't add up, but as there isn't one, that doesn't apply.
So, as you say, how many town council employees does it need to change a light bulb.

I believe that protectionism caused the death of our shipbuilding industry and if stall holders are vetoing new stalls because they compete then they are no better than the supermarkets. Anyway, who gave them that perogative.

My view for a sustainable market.
1. Reasonable rental for a specific square metre of space.
2. Protected areas for regular stall holders.
3. Stalls to conform to a design standard
4. New stallholders allowed to operate in the temporary area for maximum 4 market set ups.
5. Stallholders clean up the market place on completion of each market session.
6. Permanent stall holders required to sign up to co-operative management.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 23 2013, 02:08 PM

Spot on, arguably the Town Hall receptionist could do all that was needed in her spare time.

So then, we have yet another commercial operation being run at a loss, that if managed competently could actually provide a revenue stream. And these jokers want us to dress them in robes; as the saying goes, you couldn't make it up!

Posted by: Bartholomew Mar 23 2013, 03:21 PM

I think you've just contradicted yourself here. first sentence says that you wouldn't go through the market place, you'd rather go via Parkway bridge to Sainsbury's. The second says that it doesn't matter where the market is. Clearly it does if you avoid the market place but not Northbrook Street. As I said the market is unlikely ever to be an attraction on its own and needs to be in the right location to properly succeed.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 23 2013, 05:08 PM

Surely if the market is not selling the products that the punters want at the right price and quality it is game over wherever it is sited. I agree that the more prominent the position the more chance of impulse buying but to ensure good business the stallholder needs to give good service at the correct pricing for products that the punter requires?
If the market is no longer a success then a radical overhaul of how it is being operated should be looked at first.
By not allowing competition has this stifled the market rather than letting demand govern what stalls the punter wants?
I would not be surprised that the dead hand of the council has not helped either as most projects that are backed by the council seem to fail miserably. I am amazed at the cost of running the market that the council reckons it cost? For two days a week it seems a massive cost which should not be put on to taxpayers.
But of course the main thing to consider is the way punters shop has radically altered. Therefore is there a need for the market at all that should be debated.
Having said that I did happen to pass by the new Aldi today and traffic was queuing to get in and the car park looked packed!

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 23 2013, 05:53 PM

I do believe that we should encourage the Newbury shoppers to use the market. If the traders overheads could be kept at a minimum, then perhaps they could compete with the supermarkets and give us choice. We do not have any independant greengrocers or butchers shops in town (I don't think) and we shouldn't allow the nationals to kill the concept albeit from a market trader. We also then need to encourage traders so that the supermarkets at least have some competition perhaps small but little acorns etc.

There is a place for vendors of fresh goods as it isn't easy to get those on the internet.
The market traders have an ad on the local radio which goes somewhere along the way but I'm not sure who pays for that.

It does work, anyone notice how the local fuel prices dropped when they were put under pressure.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 23 2013, 06:04 PM

Agree with most of what you have posted -but- should taxpayers be subsidising the market traders?
If rents income covered costs then fair enough. I still think council costs for running the market needs serious investigation though the figures for what I understand is supplied seem remarkably high!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 23 2013, 06:07 PM

I didn't say I avoided the market place, I said I was as likely as not to walk from Saisburys to the High Street via the library as I was to go through the market place, agreeing with your observation that there's nothing in the market place to attract shoppers like me.

I accept that the current market would do better in Northbrook Street, but the location isn't the issue - the market is not failing because it's in the market square, it's failing because it's an anachronism and the town council's British Leyland management only know how to make Morris Marinas.

Find a successful formula to change the market into a retail success and it will succeed in the market square just as well as Northbrook Street, fail to make that paradigm shift, and the market will fail wherever it is.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 23 2013, 06:13 PM

You do. Advertising budget this year is £5k.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 23 2013, 06:23 PM

Why? And how? The Town Council spends £51k of our tax subsidizing a dozen traders who are selling stuff we don't want in a location we don't want to visit. If you change the market so that it sells stuff people want in a way that people want it then by our own choice we'll support the market, but what's the benefit of encouraging people to shop at the market otherwise?

Really, I wouldn't expect the council to spend £51k encouraging us to shop at supermarkets - and we actually like shopping at supermarkets, so why encourage people to shop where they don't want to?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 23 2013, 08:03 PM

This is cut from the 'Vetting Process' contained in a document on the NTC web site:-


If a trader is wishing to sell products considered to be similar to an existing
trader, they need to provide us with a complete product listing. This will then
be discussed with members of the Market Working Party (including Market
Manager) to decide the pros and cons of having the stall.

It is considered of high importance that we at Newbury Town Council support
and look after our loyal traders notwithstanding bringing a wide variety and
quality of stalls to the market to encourage shoppers.

If a trader is granted a pitch after this process they must not add any product
lines without first consulting the Market Manager, who may then seek advice
from the Market Working Party.

Now, if I really wanted to be pedantic, arguably this is protection. A market is supposed to be similar trades pitching against each other NOT looking after 'loyal traders'. Aren't the Liberals supposed to be the children of Messrs Cobden and Bright?

Presumably this means if I wanted to set up 'Fresh and Fruity' a quality low price fruit and veg stall, I'd be told to take a hike. So much fof customer choice and free markets!

Posted by: On the edge Mar 23 2013, 08:13 PM

From 'Market Regulations and Shoppers Charter
5 ( ................
During the probationary period NTC reserves the right to exclude any probationary trader, either temporarily or permanently, from the market without notice or explanation.

15. A trader shall not sell/display (or store) any goods or products from their appointed pitch other than those authorised/approved by the council and indicated as such on the traders approved product list. A trader wishing to alter or extend the product range sold/displayed by him/she may only do so with the consent of the council in writing.

No other comment, its left me speechless!!!!

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 23 2013, 09:19 PM

Good job Swift Half has been on his £1000.00 mediation course or you would be called vexatious by now!
If only some of the shops in the town that have now gone had consulted the council and produced a protectionist policy such as this they would probably still been in business now. Or perhaps the town would be closed through lack of punters?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 23 2013, 09:36 PM

I think it would be interesting to see the secret part of the agreement that the town council forces the traders to sign:

"We're the town council and we can make life very difficult for you, so you need to be very nice to us, see, and not say anything critical about the market or the council, or anything else the council does, 'cos if you do you'll be out on your ear sharpish, right? Now let's keep this little discussion strictly between us shall we, it'll be our little secret."

And don't tell me the council don't force people to sign this kind of thing...

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 23 2013, 09:49 PM

Or perhaps not as envisaged by the lack of stallholders?

Posted by: nerc Mar 24 2013, 07:22 AM

A Charter to operate a market was given to Newbury to operate a market on Thursdays only (saturday is just an add on) and has been in existance for many hundreds of years.

The granting of a charter allows traders to turn up and sell their wares subject to space being available.

Obviously things have changed since the charter was granted and traders now need to have insurance in place to trade but i strongly believe that NTC or the market management group(mainly regular traders) do not operate under the original charter rights.

NTC may have their own shoppers and market charter rules but these do seem to contradict the original rights granted.

If NTC encourage casual traders how can this be when they expect them to pay by direct debit?.

If you look at many other market towns they encourage casual traders to "turn up and trade" subject to space.

Until this closed shop rule stops the market will never increase.

Posted by: nerc Mar 24 2013, 07:30 AM

This is the advert that is placed on the National Market Traders Federation Site.
It clearly shows that casual traders are not allowed to turn up and trade on the day.

Market Location: Market Place, Newbury,
Newbury
RG14 SAA
Type of Market: Outdoor
Notes/Comments: Casuals, Demmers & Pitchers by prior arrangement only. Pitches not available on the day - application forms available.
Number of Stalls: 33
Type of Stalls: Own stalls some small sized ones to rent self erect
Market Days: Thursday, Saturday
Size: Various
Rent: First 8ftat £16.81. Additional £1.21 per ft
Casuals: Yes
Demmers: Yes
Pitchers: Yes
Refuse Collection: Yes
Vehicular Access: Catering Vans only
Service Charge: No
Market Operator: Newbury Town Council
Contact Details: Steve Brind
Market Manager
Tel: 01635 35486
Fax: 01635 40484
Mobile: 07836 500 772
E-Mail: servicesofficer1@newbury.gov.uk

Posted by: HJD Mar 24 2013, 09:09 AM

I have mentioned this before, but I pass through Thame quite regularly & they have a Tuesday Market that seems to be absolutely flourishing. So they must be doing some thing right.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 24 2013, 11:30 AM

No one knows what the original charter allowed because it was lost hundreds of years back. The Charter of Incorporation that established Newbury as a borough in 1596 simply states that the Corporation can carry on having markets that is is accustomed to. It says nothing about days of the week.

The Charter in Charter Market is a bit of PR nonsense, like the Manor in Newbury Manor Hotel (which was in Thatcham until the 1930s).

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 24 2013, 01:02 PM

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oft.gov.uk%2Fshared_oft%2Fbusiness_leaflets%2Fenterprise_act%2Foft513.pdf&ei=2PNOUZ2cK6nM0QWSp4HACw&usg=AFQjCNE_1hGdmQ8cnSx6JsCCqrCHfYnvGA&bvm=bv.44158598,d.d2k&cad=rja makes it a criminal offence to operate a cartel, so if market traders together agreed to exclude stalls that would compete with themselves then that might possibly be a criminal offence. It's not an offence for a town council to do it as so-called vertical agreements are not caught by the act, though the council may be guilty of conspiracy if they facilitate the operation of a cartel. If anyone suspects that the market is operating as a cartel then they need to make a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading.

The limitation of supply or production, and market-sharing are prohibited cartel activities, so if this is what the market traders are agreeing to do then there may be grounds for complaint.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 24 2013, 01:03 PM

Like the service in council service then.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 24 2013, 10:23 PM