Another great example of why the Mill’s local journalism is so valuable.
On balance I think Manchester City Council are acting reasonably. I am unpersuaded by the Market’s position that the profit share deal MCC has offered them would make their finances unviable.
This is such a good example of the genuinely even-handed journalism that distinguishes The Mill. I end up confident I know the whole story rather than a partisan view of it. Thank you Mollie Simpson and Mill editors!
Is there not a reasonable solution whereby the council receives their now due percentage, as they are seemingly, legally required to do - and the community is provided core funding from the council to mitigate the adverse impact, perhaps via a fund dedicated to the market to generate innovation and good practice? Since the CIC is a type of charity it ought to be able to apply for grants - not contracts as that gets into a heap of VAT pain. Come on Manchester, you gave the world capitalism and you also birthed cooperatives and a heap of social movements! (Ps Rochdale I know you were pioneers - but you’re Gtr Manchester)
Very important that you pointed out locals who have benefited. Cibus is one of the most popular restaurants in the area and has flourished because of locals and the market.
Any tender should reflect that. More locally successful businesses is good for all. The council should consider that before they inevitably hand it over to Makers Market Plc.
If Levy Market can’t make either of those offers work they should stand aside and let someone else take over. What they’re effectively saying is ‘we can’t make this business work unless we pay no rent.’ Every Saturday I went it was rammed with loads of traders so this just doesn’t add up.
It wasn't always rammed... and the number of stalls had almost halved since it was set up 10 years ago and traded just once a month. It was only the monthly Friday market that was busy (The Mill has incorrectly stated that the market ran every Friday and Saturday).
Thinking about your last two (excellent) articles, it’s interesting to contrast the rigour of the council’s approach to a popular weekly market, and to the provision of housing for the vulnerable. Neither seems a very happy outcome.
This was a great piece though I'm still left confused. Why does the Council claim that Levy Market is a private business? It's a CIC. Private individuals aren't getting rich by operator market. And if the Council are legally required to get beat value for money from the site (they're not selling it, by the way, so I'm not sure how "disposal of the land" is relevant), in what way is a FREE car park "best value"? Why should council taxpayers be subsidising parking for a handful of private drivers?
At the same time I'm really not sure how a 20% profit sharing model could be so detrimental to the market. It sounds pretty reasonable. Could the market not slightly change how it operates? Charge a little bit more to stallholders? It feels like the barrier here is a pretty small one.
Given the way the Council treated Coffee Cranks, who ran the café in Alexandra Park until the Council screwed them over in renegotiating their license and forced them out (only to replace them with a worse cafe that probably pays the Council more), this story isn't surprising. The cash-strappes Council does seem intent on squeezing every last penny it can from every possible source. To the detriment of the city and its community.
I like your sentiments here Charles. I guess I'm terms of 'disposal' the council may mean 'what the space is disposed to do' I think its legalistic terms
If some of the commentators here had ever spent time running a community project, they might be more sympathetic to the unpaid volunteers organising the market. Exactly why should they sweat for no money, just so that we can all have an infinitesimal fraction of a penny knocked off our Council Tax? Their good work is clearly unappreciated, and I don't blame them for pulling back.
Mollie is right, it's a prime example of unwarranted interference from central government. If Manchester Labour Party had anything about it, it would be organising local MPs to get the law changed.
As it is, Levenshulme market will probably end up as a short lived commercial arrangement run by some money grubber, who will attempt to soak the stallholders to pay the Council its paltry rent, while grabbing as much as they can for themselves.
A perfect test case for a Local Government Ombudsman to assess but I am unsure that this post still exists.Any public administration lawyers out there to clarify? As always a fine article which imbues local colour into an otherwise grey topic of council overreach.
All sounds a bit cutting off ones nose to spite ones face from the market organisers. As for building up reserves to cover for poor days, isn't that what events insurance is for?
Stop blindly voting Labour. They just take the vote for granted…and the people accordingly. The scales fell from my eyes some time ago when then Stockport’s Labour MP, Ann Coffey, wouldn’t even hold constituent surgeries, so safe was she is knowing she’d be elected come what may. Stop voting Labour blindly.
I think maybe as the owner a Council can use the land as it wishes, eg free car park, but if it gives a right to the land to a third party then best value comes into it. I imagine ratepayers would want this and it maybe helps prevent corrupt deals as well.
Even not for profit bodies are required to show auditors proof of prudent financial management and that includes retaining a financial reserve for 'rainy days' which are fairly frequent in this region! Putting up fees might discourage some traders and would be reflected in consumer prices,a self defeating strategy.
Just need to clear one thing up - near the start of the article it suggests there was a 'painful planning permission process”. I can't see any other reference, so I don't think this is a planning issue. Us town planners get blamed for a lot of things, usually unfairly, but if the article is accurate (and I do trust the mill) we're definitely not involved here.
Hi Jim - possibly but they weren't (and haven't) looked for alternative revenue paying uses (or started charging for parking) so I don't see 'best value' coming into it
Another great example of why the Mill’s local journalism is so valuable.
On balance I think Manchester City Council are acting reasonably. I am unpersuaded by the Market’s position that the profit share deal MCC has offered them would make their finances unviable.
This is such a good example of the genuinely even-handed journalism that distinguishes The Mill. I end up confident I know the whole story rather than a partisan view of it. Thank you Mollie Simpson and Mill editors!
Is there not a reasonable solution whereby the council receives their now due percentage, as they are seemingly, legally required to do - and the community is provided core funding from the council to mitigate the adverse impact, perhaps via a fund dedicated to the market to generate innovation and good practice? Since the CIC is a type of charity it ought to be able to apply for grants - not contracts as that gets into a heap of VAT pain. Come on Manchester, you gave the world capitalism and you also birthed cooperatives and a heap of social movements! (Ps Rochdale I know you were pioneers - but you’re Gtr Manchester)
Very important that you pointed out locals who have benefited. Cibus is one of the most popular restaurants in the area and has flourished because of locals and the market.
Any tender should reflect that. More locally successful businesses is good for all. The council should consider that before they inevitably hand it over to Makers Market Plc.
If Levy Market can’t make either of those offers work they should stand aside and let someone else take over. What they’re effectively saying is ‘we can’t make this business work unless we pay no rent.’ Every Saturday I went it was rammed with loads of traders so this just doesn’t add up.
It wasn't always rammed... and the number of stalls had almost halved since it was set up 10 years ago and traded just once a month. It was only the monthly Friday market that was busy (The Mill has incorrectly stated that the market ran every Friday and Saturday).
Oh! As I said I was only there on a Saturday and it was always jam-packed - both stalls and people. How come it went so downhill?
They have corrected the article to monthly on a Friday. When was the last time you went?
Goodness knows. The days, weeks, months and years are just a blur in my dotage.
Thinking about your last two (excellent) articles, it’s interesting to contrast the rigour of the council’s approach to a popular weekly market, and to the provision of housing for the vulnerable. Neither seems a very happy outcome.
This was a great piece though I'm still left confused. Why does the Council claim that Levy Market is a private business? It's a CIC. Private individuals aren't getting rich by operator market. And if the Council are legally required to get beat value for money from the site (they're not selling it, by the way, so I'm not sure how "disposal of the land" is relevant), in what way is a FREE car park "best value"? Why should council taxpayers be subsidising parking for a handful of private drivers?
At the same time I'm really not sure how a 20% profit sharing model could be so detrimental to the market. It sounds pretty reasonable. Could the market not slightly change how it operates? Charge a little bit more to stallholders? It feels like the barrier here is a pretty small one.
Given the way the Council treated Coffee Cranks, who ran the café in Alexandra Park until the Council screwed them over in renegotiating their license and forced them out (only to replace them with a worse cafe that probably pays the Council more), this story isn't surprising. The cash-strappes Council does seem intent on squeezing every last penny it can from every possible source. To the detriment of the city and its community.
Technically a CIC is still a private business, just one that has certain rules about how to use profits. It's not a charity.
In property terms a lease is a disposal of land / property - even if not a sale, it does grant the lessee a interest in the land.
I like your sentiments here Charles. I guess I'm terms of 'disposal' the council may mean 'what the space is disposed to do' I think its legalistic terms
Thanks Gerard, and good point about "disposal". I hadn't thought of it that way.
If some of the commentators here had ever spent time running a community project, they might be more sympathetic to the unpaid volunteers organising the market. Exactly why should they sweat for no money, just so that we can all have an infinitesimal fraction of a penny knocked off our Council Tax? Their good work is clearly unappreciated, and I don't blame them for pulling back.
Mollie is right, it's a prime example of unwarranted interference from central government. If Manchester Labour Party had anything about it, it would be organising local MPs to get the law changed.
As it is, Levenshulme market will probably end up as a short lived commercial arrangement run by some money grubber, who will attempt to soak the stallholders to pay the Council its paltry rent, while grabbing as much as they can for themselves.
A perfect test case for a Local Government Ombudsman to assess but I am unsure that this post still exists.Any public administration lawyers out there to clarify? As always a fine article which imbues local colour into an otherwise grey topic of council overreach.
Thanks Mollie. An interesting and balanced read.
All sounds a bit cutting off ones nose to spite ones face from the market organisers. As for building up reserves to cover for poor days, isn't that what events insurance is for?
Stop blindly voting Labour. They just take the vote for granted…and the people accordingly. The scales fell from my eyes some time ago when then Stockport’s Labour MP, Ann Coffey, wouldn’t even hold constituent surgeries, so safe was she is knowing she’d be elected come what may. Stop voting Labour blindly.
As it's a free car park the Council wasn't losing any income from the market using it so 'best value' in financial terms isn't relevant.
I think maybe as the owner a Council can use the land as it wishes, eg free car park, but if it gives a right to the land to a third party then best value comes into it. I imagine ratepayers would want this and it maybe helps prevent corrupt deals as well.
So, no profit no cost? Having some difficulty seeing exactly what the problem is.
Even not for profit bodies are required to show auditors proof of prudent financial management and that includes retaining a financial reserve for 'rainy days' which are fairly frequent in this region! Putting up fees might discourage some traders and would be reflected in consumer prices,a self defeating strategy.
Just need to clear one thing up - near the start of the article it suggests there was a 'painful planning permission process”. I can't see any other reference, so I don't think this is a planning issue. Us town planners get blamed for a lot of things, usually unfairly, but if the article is accurate (and I do trust the mill) we're definitely not involved here.
Just posted this to thread
Hi Jim - possibly but they weren't (and haven't) looked for alternative revenue paying uses (or started charging for parking) so I don't see 'best value' coming into it