Conclusions and recommendations
Background
1. The
situation as regards traditional retail markets in England today
is complex. There is evidence of prolonged decline coinciding
with the growth of supermarkets. But there is also evidence of
continuing success for some in all types of market. There is scope
for optimism for the future provided that local authorities and
other key stakeholders are willing and able to rise to the challenges
that markets will continue to face. (Paragraph 31)
The benefits of traditional retail markets
2. Specialist
markets can add a further dimension to the five benefits identified
earlier: economic, social, regeneration, health and the environment.
(Paragraph 56)
3. We see no reason
why farmers' markets should not retain their identity within a
larger 'ordinary' market, and can see advantages for both types
of markets in terms of increasing footfall and creating more of
an event feel. We recommend, therefore, that local authorities
actively consider the benefits of co-location, though we accept
that this may not always be appropriate. (Paragraph 66)
4. We acknowledge
that the use of market Charters to regulate market numbers is
a complex issue, but believe that it is one that locally-elected
councils are best placed to adjudicate on. We would though recommend
that councils treat farmers' markets applications sympathetically
given the potential benefits they can offer whether in proximity
to existing markets or in isolation. We also recommend that account
be taken of the status of the organisation wishing to run a farmers'
market, and that consideration be given to reducing fees in the
event that the organisation is a not-for-profit organisation with
clearly articulated social goals. (Paragraph 68)
Realising the potential of traditional retail
markets in metropolitan centres
5. We
recommend that local authorities develop a strategic plan for
the development of their markets that encompasses the eight separate
qualities we have identified: integration with the town centre
and local communities; good management; investment; promotion;
a unique selling point; location; partnership working; and lessons
from elsewhere in Europe. We further recommend, drawing particularly
on the continental approach, that English local authorities consider
the advantages of longer-term contracts with private operators
if they choose to outsource their market operation, and recognise
the importance of long-term commitment—including financial
commitment—to their markets. We also see merit in local
authorities exploring with NABMA and the NMTF the feasibility
of creating broader roles for market trader organisations in terms
of managing and promoting their markets, as a means of encouraging
innovation in the future development of markets. Finally, we suspect
that continental markets have much to offer in terms of managing
public space and creating market events and suggest that local
authorities consider the merits of market twinning, perhaps as
part of a wider town twinning arrangement. (Paragraph 84)
6. We do not underestimate
the size of the challenge facing local authorities seeking to
sustain their markets in the current austere economic climate.
From the evidence we have received, it seems to us that there
are two big challenges: finance and management. (Paragraph 85)
7. We commend those
councils such as Bradford, Bolton and Leicester who have already
taken steps to increase and sustain investment in their markets.
The challenge now is for more councils with markets in their locality
to find the additional investment required to modernise and then
sustain their markets in the context of a prolonged period of
retrenchment. Ring-fencing market profit for reinvestment in the
market, as Bradford have done in recent years, is clearly one
option that more councils ought to consider. In addition, by considering
markets as part of the wider town centre management agenda and
in terms of their ability to deliver a number of strategic benefits,
councils may find it easier both to release their own resources
for markets, and to obtain financial support from other local
and regional partners—for example regional development agencies
(regeneration agenda), primary care trusts (the health agenda)
and third sector partners (the social cohesion agenda). We recommend
that local authorities think laterally and innovatively along
these lines. (Paragraph 86)
8. We recommend that
local authorities with profitable but 'tired' markets consider
prudential borrowing as a means of revitalising their markets.
(Paragraph 87)
9. A third area that
local authorities should, in our view, explore further is joint
financial sharing with local market trader organisations, with
the proviso that the latter in return gain a more strategic role
in the managing of their markets. (Paragraph 88)
10. We commend those
councils who have already identified market champions and urge
other councils with markets to adopt a similar model. (Paragraph
90)
11. We commend the
LGA for establishing a market champion and recommend that it work
with local councils and NABMA to develop the post so it has a
clear and prominent role that adds real value to local council
efforts to improve market management. (Paragraph 91)
12. We recommend that
councils review their market management structure and give careful
consideration to the most appropriate organisation for them that
recognises the need to realise the wider economic and non-economic
benefits of markets and gives due weight to the public and private
sector alternatives on offer. (Paragraph 94)
13. We are persuaded
that there is a strong case for London authorities to be given
greater powers in respect of their street markets. (Paragraph
101)
14. We recommend that
London local authorities and CLG, whose support will be necessary
to ensure that legislative change comes into effect, work together
to change the relevant provisions of the London Local Authorities
Act 1990 and other relevant legislation specific to individual
London boroughs. In doing so, however, they should be mindful
of the need to include a requirement to work in partnership with
market trader organisations on the development of London street
markets. Where local authorities gain additional powers in relation
to market rents, stall location and management structures, it
should be incumbent upon them clearly to articulate their strategic
vision for the future of their street markets, and the benefits
that will ensue for both traders and the wider community, before
they put these powers into practice. (Paragraph 101)
Realising the potential of retail markets in medium
and small towns
15. Councils
need to have a clear strategic vision of how they intend to secure
the long-term sustainability of their markets. (Paragraph 107)
16. We encourage those
local authorities who retain a market to review very carefully
the other options available to them before they elect to close
it down. One option, as in the previous section, would be to create
a market champion on the council, possibly aligned with the town
centre management function. Smaller councils should also explore
the feasibility of sharing a market champion to oversee markets
in more than one locality. (Paragraph 107)
17. Given the vital
importance—when one or two key stalls can make all the difference—of
attracting the right mix of stalls and market traders, smaller
local authorities should also place particular emphasis on employing
a market operator capable of building up a sustainable market.
(Paragraph 108)
18. The suggestion
from a number of our witnesses, which we think is a good one,
was that local councils might need to look to the private sector
to find such a person. (Paragraph 108)
19. Given that a 'toby'
can run more than one market, we recommend that the local councils
of neighbouring market towns consider a cost-saving joint-employment
arrangement. (Paragraph 108)
20. Local authorities
should also consider carefully the location of their markets,
particularly in the light of the AMT study. (Paragraph 109)
21. Small decisions
can make a big impact, and a heartfelt plea from much of our market
trader evidence was that councils needed to include them in consultation
when they were considering changes to the market environment—a
plea which we endorse. (Paragraph 109)
22. We see one further
option that councils with local markets should explore, namely
the potential for greater partnership working, including non-council
streams of funding, to further joint goals. We believe that lower
tier authorities, possibly in conjunction with upper tier authorities,
can—on a smaller scale—pursue the same wider objectives
(healthy eating, community cohesion etc) as metropolitan councils.
(Paragraph 110)
The industry
23. We
commend the key market industry organisations for the work they
have done in recent years to establish a coordinated approach
to tackling strategic market industry issues. We recommend that
the industry look in particular at how they can provide further
best practice guidance and support to lower tier councils operating
smaller, local markets and who are more likely to lack specialist
market knowledge (Paragraph 120)
The way ahead for central government
24. We
welcome the Government's decision to include markets within its
strategic planning guidance and, in particular, the advice to
local governments to retain and enhance existing markets. (Paragraph
124)
25. We urge the Government
to emphasise the wider non-economic benefits that markets can
bring and to encourage local authorities also to take them into
account when making planning decisions, both in the PPS document,
and in the future iterations of the accompanying good practice
guidance. (Paragraph 124)
26. It should not
be central government's role to intervene in the future of individual
markets. Markets are nothing if not local, and it is for local
authorities to be the key source of public support. The future
of the industry is best served by an active partnership between
the key industry organisations, including market trader organisations,
and local authorities. (Paragraph 131)
27. We are concerned
however that there is a lack of clarity within central government
as to who has overall responsibility for markets, as opposed to
an interest in certain aspects of them. (Paragraph 132)
28. There are actions
that the Government could take, beyond production of strategic
planning guidance, better to fulfil its proper strategic role
in relation to markets. (Paragraph 132)
29. We are not convinced
that there is a sufficiently strong case to appoint a Markets
Minister. (Paragraph 133)
30. We do nevertheless
see a need for a clear central government focus for markets, and
recommend that the lead should lie with CLG in recognition both
of the wider community aspects of markets and the key role of
local government. (Paragraph 134)
31. We recommend,
therefore, that CLG takes on responsibility for providing a clear
strategic central government focus for markets, and that this
is reflected in the portfolio of a named Minister, in the terms
of reference of a senior civil servant in the Department and in
active engagement with the market industry. (Paragraph 134)
32. We further recommend
that CLG lead an inter-departmental working group to ensure that
departments make best use of markets as a vehicle to further wider
Government objectives as set out in this report. (Paragraph 135)
| 
