Maidstone’s cabinet approved the Lockmeadow improvements in July. Councillors called the decision in and sent it back on 10 August, asking that the Tuesday and Saturday market be allowed to keep trading while a strategy for the town’s markets is worked out. The cabinet takes the matter up again on Wednesday 16 September.

The future of the market at Maidstone’s Lockmeadow Leisure Complex returns to the borough council’s cabinet on Wednesday, a month after councillors sent its original decision back for reconsideration.

The cabinet approved a set of improvements to Lockmeadow on 22 July, subject to an amendment placing emphasis on youth provision and the aim of providing a dedicated safe space for young people in Maidstone. Two weeks later the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, meeting on 10 August, referred that decision back.

The committee asked the cabinet to separate the question of what happens to the market hall building from the future of the Tuesday and Saturday market itself, so that trading can continue while a wider strategy is developed. The council’s forward plan, published on 7 September, lists Lockmeadow improvements for a cabinet decision on 16 September.

Why the decision was called in

The item came before the committee as a formal call-in requested by Councillor Parfitt, who had given apologies for the meeting. The chairman read out a statement from Councillor Parfitt setting out concerns that further public consultation with market traders was needed before the proposals were brought forward, and that more evidence was required to justify giving traders notice.

The chairman then outlined the grounds for the call-in. They were that consultation with market traders had been insufficient and that financial information had not been provided in the report; that no equality, diversity and inclusion impact assessment had been undertaken; that the historical significance of the market required further consideration; that it was uncertain what the market space would be used for once notice was given; that a new unitary authority in West Kent could take a more thorough approach after local government reorganisation; and that the new weekly market the council has established at Jubilee Square could be interpreted as direct competition for Lockmeadow.

Michael Walkling, June Bick and Royston Starling spoke as local residents. A petition on the item had been submitted to the council and presented to the chief executive, but could not be formally presented to the committee because it had not been submitted two weeks in advance, as the council’s petition scheme requires. Six committee members declared that they had been lobbied on the item.

The leader’s response

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jeffery, told the committee that further consultation with market traders would be carried out and that traders would be asked how they would improve the whole Lockmeadow space. He said the financial and equality impacts of the proposal could only be set out once those suggestions had been received.

He said the leisure and entertainment offer at Lockmeadow was recognised as good for Maidstone, but that the market in its current form was loss-making and more sustainable sources of income should be explored. On the competition point, he said that while some stalls at Lockmeadow and Jubilee Square were similar, the Jubilee Square market was intended to be a farmers’ market and its location could help draw visitors into the town centre. Notice would only be given to traders, he said, after other options for the space had been explored.

The Director of Finance and Resources said consultation drop-in sessions would be held with market stallholders, Lockmeadow tenants and members of the public, and that traders would have six months after any notice was given for proposals for future use to be developed.

The decoupling question

The committee raised what the minutes record as significant concerns that traders had not been consulted enough, and that if they were given notice to leave, even temporarily, they could go elsewhere and not come back. Several members said more local facilities were needed in the ward, and that any public consultation on replacing the market should have come before notice was given.

Members asked whether the market hall and the traders could be treated separately. The minutes record that traders did not carry out the vast majority of their trading inside the market hall, working mostly from the car park at Lockmeadow, which members felt made separating the two more workable. The aim would be to give traders security nearby for a set period while options for the hall were explored. The committee also felt a strategy for Maidstone’s markets was needed, both to account for the market’s historical importance and to make sure a market survives local government reorganisation.

The Director of Finance and Resources said it might be possible to separate the traders from the market hall, but noted complications because both are currently run as a single operation.

What the committee decided

The committee resolved to refer the matter back to the cabinet to decouple the decision on the market hall building from the Tuesday and Saturday market so that trading can continue until a future decision and strategy for the town market is finalised; to run a public consultation on future options for the Lockmeadow area; and to bring a future options report through the Policy Advisory Committee system.

A referral back does not overturn the cabinet’s decision. The cabinet may confirm what it decided in July, amend it, or take a different course. The reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is on the agenda for its meeting on 16 September, together with a public statement submitted in support of the market.

Sources

Top image: Lockmeadow Market, Maidstone, pictured in 2006. Photograph by Penny Mayes, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Geograph and Wikimedia Commons.