Agenda item

To consider the report of Cabinet following its meeting on 26 July 2011.

(Two Appendices are to follow, the Financial Options Appraisal and Legal Implications)

 

Council considered a report of Cabinet regarding the future of Lancaster Market.

 

At its meeting on 26 July, Cabinet considered a report on Lancaster Market and made several recommendations to Council. However, Cabinet acknowledged that a full financial appraisal had to be undertaken to inform Council’s decision making.

 

A full financial appraisal had since been carried out. This was attached to the report being considered at Appendix B.  The appraisal had been prepared by Financial Services with input from Property and Legal. A legal briefing was also included with the report at Appendix C.

 

Councillor Barry, portfolio holder for Markets, introduced the report and responded to a number of questions from Councillors. Senior officers present also responded to Members’ questions.

 

Councillor Barry then proposed, seconded by Councillor Coates:

 

“(1)         That all market traders be moved onto the ground floor and rents or service charges not be increased at this point.

 

(2)                    That legal agreement be reached with traders on the move to the bottom floor and to costs that traders would pay for moving and fitting out.

 

(3)                    That consideration be given to reducing the costs of the move.

 

(4)                    That the move in (1) above be done with some urgency to protect existing businesses on the top floor and to protect the Council's future rental income.

 

(5)                    That alternative tenants be sought for the upper floor.

 

(6)                    That the recommendations in terms of improved marketing and management recommended to Council in the NCS report received in December 2010 be carried out.

 

(7)                    That the Council's costs of running the market be examined and it be considered whether these can be reduced.”

 

The Deputy Mayor informed Council that two amendments had been received and would be dealt with in turn. The first was from the Conservative Group and was proposed by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Williamson:

 

“(1)      That Council accepts that moving traders within the Lancaster Market building and altering the interior of the building at the costs set out in the report with the aim of revitalising the market in its present location will not be a sound investment of taxpayer funds.

 

(2)               That Council seeks terms for a surrender of its lease of the Market building.

 

(3)               That Council seeks terms for assisting remaining market tenants to relocate to alternative trading locations and

 

(4)               That the result of these negotiations is reported back to Members.”

 

A lengthy debate followed on the amendment. At the conclusion of the debate and of his summing up, Councillor Mace asked to withdraw his amendment. The Deputy Mayor informed Councillor Mace that it was too late for his amendment to be withdrawn.

 

A recorded vote was requested in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.4.   The votes were recorded as follows:

 

For the amendment:

 

Councillors Tony Anderson, Keith Budden, Susie Charles, Kathleen Graham, Helen Helme, Billy Hill, Joan Jackson, Alycia James, Tony Johnson, Roger Mace, Jane Parkinson, Sylvia Rogerson, Richard Rollins, Emma Smith, Keith Sowden, Susan Sykes, Malcolm Thomas and Peter Williamson (18). 

 

Against the amendment:

 

Councillors  Paul Aitchison, June Ashworth, Joshua Bancroft, Jon Barry, Mark Bevan, Eileen Blamire, Dave Brookes, Abbott Bryning, Shirley Burns, Chris Coates, Sheila Denwood, Jonathan Dixon, Paul Gardner, Mike Greenall, Janet Hall, Janice Hanson, John Harrison, Andrew Kay, David Kerr, Tracey Kennedy, Geoff Knight, Karen Leytham, Terrie Metcalfe, Richard Newman-Thompson, Ian Pattison, Margaret Pattison, Robert Redfern, Ron Sands, Elizabeth Scott, Roger Sherlock, David Smith, Joyce Taylor and David Whitaker (33).

 

Abstentions:

 

Councillors Roger Dennison and Geoff Marsland (2).

 

With 18 voting for the amendment, 33 against and 2 abstentions, the Deputy Mayor declared the amendment lost.

 

At this point the Deputy Mayor reminded Council of the requirement in the Constitution for a short break after a period of two hours.

 

The meeting adjourned at 4.45pm for 10 minutes.

 

A further amendment was moved by Councillor Kerr and seconded by Councillor Marsland:

 

“That Council accepts option D as set out in Appendix B of the report. To

• Keep current market layout
• Charge a commercial rate for market stall charges, subject to court determination
• Charge a full recovery rate for service charges
• Incorporate into future updates of the Corporate Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy
• Authorise officers to develop future options for consideration by Members in due course.”

 

A recorded vote was requested in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.4 and the votes were recorded as follows:

 

For the amendment:

 

Councillors Tony Anderson, June Ashworth, Keith Budden, Shirley Burns, Roger Dennison, Mike Greenall, David Kerr, Geoff Knight, Geoff Marsland and Joyce Taylor (10). 

 

Against the amendment:

 

Councillors  Paul Aitchison, Joshua Bancroft, Jon Barry, Mark Bevan, Eileen Blamire, Dave Brookes, Abbott Bryning, Susie Charles, Chris Coates, Sheila Denwood, Jonathan Dixon, Paul Gardner, Kathleen Graham, Janet Hall, Janice Hanson, John Harrison, Helen Helme, Billy Hill, Joan Jackson, Alycia James, Tony Johnson, Andrew Kay, Tracey Kennedy, Karen Leytham, Roger Mace, Terrie Metcalfe, Richard Newman-Thompson, Jane Parkinson, Ian Pattison, Margaret Pattison, Robert Redfern, Sylvia Rogerson, Richard Rollins, Ron Sands, Elizabeth Scott, Roger Sherlock, David Smith, Emma Smith, Susan Sykes, Malcolm Thomas, David Whitaker and Peter Williamson (42).

 

Abstention:

 

Councillor Keith Sowden (1).

 

With 10 Members voting for the proposition, 42 against and 1 abstention, the Deputy Mayor declared the amendment lost.

 

Councillor Blamire then proposed:

 

“That the matter be deferred until the next Council meeting in November 2011.”

 

Councillor Blamire’s amendment was seconded by Councillor Williamson and a vote was taken. The amendment was clearly carried.

 

The amendment then became the substantive motion and a further vote was taken. With many voting for and few against, the Deputy Mayor declared the motion clearly carried.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)        That the matter be deferred until the next Council meeting in November 2011.