Agenda item

Petition - "Save the Market Hall"

Minutes:

The Board received a petition submitted by Mr. Fred Stanley entitled “Save the Market Hall”. The petition contained over 1000 names and addresses. The petition read as follows:

“We the undersigned feel the market hall should not be pulled down, as this town has had a market hall since the time of King Henry the 8th or even earlier than that. The market hall should be put to another use rather than pulling it down. We are looking for all the support we can get and need people to lobby the council and our local mp’s to save our market hall”.

The Chairman reiterated the role and purpose of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Board in considering petitions and explained the process for the petition for the benefit of members of the public that joined the meeting later. He explained that he had agreed to put back consideration of the agenda item on this petition until 6.00 p.m. to allow time for members of the public with an interest in this item to attend.

The Chairman outlined the process for the consideration of the petition as follows:

Presentation of the petition by the Lead Petitioner, Mr. Fred Stanley, with Mr. Alan Mitchell speaking in substitute on his behalf, allowing up to 5 minutes, followed by questions from the Board,
Presentation of the officer report by the Economic Development & Town Centre Manager,
Questions to the Cabinet Portfolio Holders and lead officer,
Questions to Ward Member, Councillor E. C. Tibby, if required,
Questions to nominated petition supporters - Councillors P. M. McDonald and E. J. Murray, if required.

The Chairman pointed out that at least one fraudulent signature had been identified in the petition on the Market Hall and that the person concerned had confirmed that his signature had been falsified and that he had not in fact signed the petition. The Chairman warned that fraudulent signatures undermined the credibility of petitions and that the Board would be likely to take a dim view of petitions presented to it which contained deliberately falsified signatures.

RESOLVED that the identified falsified signature entered on the petition “Save the Market Hall” be struck off from the petition.

At this stage of the meeting there was some disturbance and interjections from the public gallery. The Chairman asked members of the public and Councillors not on the Board not to interrupt the proceedings.

The Chairman invited the lead petitioner to present the petition. Mr. Alan Mitchell presented the petition on behalf of Mr. Fred Stanley. Mr. Mitchell presented some key reasons why the petition to save the Market Hall had been organised and presented to the Board.

Mr. Mitchell referred to comments allegedly made by the Leader of the Council that the people of Bromsgrove had agreed to the plans for the regeneration of the town centre, including the planned demolition of the Market Hall site. He said that the plans for the redevelopment of the site had not been made available for public inspection and that the public had not been able to have their say. He said that the people would not have given their approval to the regeneration of the Market Hall site if the details had been available. He expressed the view that the Market Hall belonged to the people of Bromsgrove and should not be demolished without a public meeting or a public referendum and that there was wide support for retention of the market hall from all the wards in the District.

Mr. Mitchell expressed the view that the financial calculations for the revenue to be raised from the car park that was planned to replace the Market Hall structure on the site, which were expected to generate an additional £25,000 a year, were flawed as there was insufficient demand for car parking facilities and existing car parks were not fully utilised.

Mr. Mitchell concluded by stating that if the Market Hall was demolished there was no prospect of the site being redeveloped in the near future, possibility for some years and that the people of Bromsgrove felt passionate about their Market Hall and should be allowed to vote on its future.

The Chairman thanked Mr. Mitchell and invited Members of the Board to ask questions to him on the petition.

The Chairman invited the Economic Development & Town Centre Manager to introduce the officer report on the Demolition of the Market Hall. This provided background information on the decision taken by the Cabinet on 2nd September 2009 to demolish the Market Hall as the first phase of preparation of the site for redevelopment. Members were informed that the Market Hall had been closed in February 2009 and the market stalls transferred to the Bromsgrove High Street for the establishment of a new outdoor market in March 2009. Since then the High Street Market has been running every Tuesday, Friday and Saturday. The Economic Development & Town Centre Manager referred to surveys conducted of market traders and shoppers which indicated that the move of the market stalls to the High Street had been popular and it was felt to have been a successful move.

Income from stall rental had been increased, foot-fall around the market stalls had increased, more life had been added to the high street and that the move had been very popular amongst market stall traders.

The Chairman invited Members of the Board to put questions to the Economic Development & Town Centre Manager.

Members asked about the antiques fair held at the Market Hall and whether there had been any discussion with them about their relocation. He said that there had been several discussions and that the Council had been attempting to assist in finding an alternative location around the town. He reported that the Spadesborne Suite at Burcot Lane was suitable at the weekends but not during the week.

The Portfolio Holder for Street Scene and Project Management of the Town Centre was asked what sort of new developments could be anticipated from redevelopment of the Market Hall site. He advised that retail or hospitality developments were anticipated, but that all options were being considered. The cost of maintaining the building was approximately £40,000 per year and the income generated from the antiques fair and the café was well below this figure. The demolition would save the Council a significant amount of money and would allow the interim solution of extra car parking facilities to be put in place while negotiations were taking place to find a potential developer for the site.

Members asked whether, despite a very strong case being presented for redevelopment of the site, options had been explored for keeping the Market Hall structure in place. The Portfolio Holder replied that other options had been considered, including auction companies, and a children’s play centre, but that other commercial partners tended to require sites near transport interchange points (e.g. near motorways), larger premises and free parking.

A question was raised as to what the implications might be if the redevelopment of the Market Hall site were not to go ahead. The Portfolio Holder responded that the site would become moribund, but that the site would become attractive for redevelopment to a major retailer in the medium term.

Members asked about consultation for the redevelopment of the Market Hall site. In response the Portfolio Holder referred to surveys that had taken place following the relocation of the market from the Market Hall to the High Street. Approximately six weeks after the launch, surveys of customers, shopkeepers and the market traders had been carried out to ask for their views on the relocation of the market to the High Street. Key results from the survey of Shoppers/Customers were outlined.

Respondents were asked “do you think the new market has made the town centre more interesting for shoppers?” 86% said “yes” and 14% said “no”.
Respondents were asked “what do you like about the market?” (in the high street). The top 4 answers were: “more variety”, “brings people in”, “better access to market”, “improves atmosphere”.
Respondents were asked “overall, are you in favour of the High Street Market continuing?” 86% said “yes” and 14% said “no”.

The Portfolio Holder advised that the surveys demonstrated support for the market in the High Street among the key target groups; shoppers, shopkeepers and market traders and that it was also clear that there would be no support among any of these groups (especially market traders) for a re-opening of the Market Hall. A further series of surveys was planned towards the end of 2010 when the High Street market would have been established for 18 months.

It was also noted that traders’ attendance at Bromsgrove High Street market had remained steady despite the recession and the cold weather, that stall rental receipts were higher than forecast and that there was every reason to expect the continued success of Bromsgrove market in the High Street.

Members asked the Portfolio Holder to describe the Market Hall; its aesthetics and functionality. He advised that the Hall was 8,000 square feet; purpose built for a market, that it was not suitable for any other use and certainly not for a modern retailing outlet.

At this stage there were interruptions from the public gallery. The Chairman asked people in the public gallery to stop interjecting and to allow the Members of the Board to speak. A Member of the Board protested that they could not ask their question clearly because of the noise and interruptions from the public gallery. At this point, having heard evidence from the lead petitioner, the appropriate officer and relevant Portfolio Holder, it was suggested that the meeting be brought to a conclusion. It was then moved and seconded that the Board taken no further action. Having been put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED that the Board take no further action in respect of the petition “Save the Market Hall”.

Supporting documents: