Agenda item

The Superintendents to be heard.

The Committee heard from the market Superintendents and the following matters were raised:-

Smithfield Market

·         No unguided HGV movements were recorded during the bi-monthly HGV audit carried out to 27 June. Taking account of the controlling mechanisms available on the site, with no fence / gatehouse and the difficulty in segregating pedestrians and vehicles, the HGV risk would continue to be recorded as moderate / amber.

·         Noted that the condenser water temperatures had remained at appropriate levels during the recent hot weather. During 2019 the system pipework would be replaced.

·         An event licence had been obtained for the Smithfield 150 celebrations and planning was at an advanced stage.

Billingsgate Market

·         Dan Ritchie introduced himself as Malcolm Macleod’s replacement and the Committee noted that an EU fund award of £14,000 had been approved for a forklift truck and further applications would continue to be submitted for EU funding as appropriate.

New Spitalfields

·         The Chairman referred to the email to Members and the Director of Markets and Consumer Protection (DMCP) from the Chairman of the New Spitalfields Market Tenants’ Association. The email raised concerns at the cost of the waste / cleaning contracts at the market and associated issues relating to the proposed entry barrier. The Chairman asked the Superintendent to inform the Committee of his response and confirmed that, in liaison with the DMCP, he would send a formal reply on behalf of the Committee.

The Superintendent confirmed that the waste contract provided best value, being the cheapest and offering the best technical envelope. He also said that payment of the London Living Wage (LLW) had increased the contract recharge to the service charge, but that the impact is minimised as much as possible and that only those actually entitled to receive the LLW are included in Countrystyle’s costs, with the company not permitted to make a ‘blanket’ wage increase. The Superintendent went on to say that tenant and customer waste needed to be contained collaboratively and that a culture change was required to do this.

On the entry barrier, the Superintendent reminded Members of previous problems with project implementation and said that lessons had been learnt from that process. He said that a Customer Service Board would look to address issues going forward, with appropriate service agreements used. 

The Chairman commented on the culture change required to address some of these matters, including the issue of recharging centrally for services as happens at present. He said that it appeared that a significant part of meetings with the market tenants was taken up with concerns over increases in service charge.

Discussion commenced and a Member put forward his concern at the issues raised by the traders and the need for more empathy for them and further consideration of measures to alleviate the problems. The Superintendent confirmed had office cleaning been in the Countryside contract, the cost would have been in the region of £168,000, and therefore considerably higher than the £121,000 now charged by Servest. He went on to emphasise the intention to install the delayed entry barrier as rapidly as possible so that funds are generated to reduce the service charge.  On this point, a Member expressed the view that an entry charge may reduce visitor numbers. On the service charge, it was noted that there had been a reduction of around 1.57% in 2016/17.

Debate continued and in response to Members’ questions, the Superintendent confirmed the new contract waste charges are based on the amount of waste that a trader creates rather than it all being shared as a general cost spread over the whole service charge, where those who created little waste were, in effect, subsidising those who created more. As waste generated at the market was from the traders and their customers, it was considered legitimate for its collection to be part of the service charge. Members noted that neither an improved CCTV system nor an entry barrier would prevent customers from dumping surplus product, packaging, etc and a concerted and combined effort by both traders and the Corporation to run an educational campaign to address this issue would be necessary. Flytipping was not considered to be a particular problem at New Spitalfields.

The Chairman referred to discussion specifically on the entry barrier and its impact on the service charge and asked officers to submit a report to a future meeting, including tenants and officers views, setting out ‘pros and cons’ for further debate. The Chairman went on to say that an appropriate balance was required on these issues that maintained the confidence of the tenants and the success of the market. He reaffirmed the intention to respond in full to the concerns raised by the tenants, in association with the DMCP, and to communicate this response to the Committee.   

RECEIVED.