tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79367181454779028.post5075199877005444109..comments2023-10-18T13:49:04.792+01:00Comments on Virtual Lancaster News Blog: Future of Lancaster Market discussedAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09111099866285188994noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79367181454779028.post-18578875857201450132010-03-17T20:43:34.016+00:002010-03-17T20:43:34.016+00:00In his "Lancaster Market Survey", Cllr. ...In his "Lancaster Market Survey", Cllr. Langhorn has restricted the choices for the future of the Market to:- <br /><br />Leave matters as they are now (at a cost of £500,000 a year) <br />Move the market to a cheaper site (say, St. Leonard’s Gate?) <br />Traders to occupy the top floor only (let the rest & save £250,000) <br />Help traders move to vacant shops in Lancaster<br /><br />I hope he has not equally restricted the terms of reference of the Working Group he set up to consider the future of the Market.<br /><br />In looking for alternative ways of reducing the deficit, he appears to have chosen to ignore those options suggested by the Market Tenants Association that were supported by the Conservative Group as "meriting further investigation". Instead, he seems to be persisting with the limited range of options set out in his "Lancaster Market Survey". <br /><br />One suggestion from the Traders Association would see the Traders forming a Limited company to run the Market, so allowing the Traders themselves to improve the market, and control their own destiny. To proceed in this way is probably less of a risk to all concerned than some of the other plans under discussion. <br /><br />It concerns me that in the haste to finalise things by 31 March, time may not be made available for this proposal to be properly investigated - and for terms of a suitable agreement between a Market Tenants' Company and the City Council to be negotiated. <br /><br />The Council Leader correctly reports that Conservatives did not support the setting up of a Cabinet Working Group to report back to a Council meeting on 31 March - but he "conveniently" fails to report the Conservative Amendment on the Market at the Budget Council on 3 March - an amendment which clearly "put the ball in the traders' court" and would have given the traders control of their own destiny and the opportunity to negotiate on all their proposals - not just on those options offered to them by the Council. <br /><br />Cllr. J. R. MaceCllr. J. R. Macenoreply@blogger.com