11 Mar 2024
Campaigning work by the St Albans Times has resulted in the district council re-evaluating plans to expand the number of markets taking place in St Albans.
As highlighted in recent weeks, SADC proposed allowing smaller markets of up to 10 traders on days when the Charter Market is not taking place.
The aim of the changes is to move to one model of trading in St Peter’s Street with a view to opening up the trading days for the benefit of residents, and visitors.
But this will mean a change in the fee structure which could see the annual fees for existing street traders skyrocket from a few hundred pounds to well over £5,000 depending how many days a week they trade.
At the moment, they pay an annual fee of £552, discounted to £419 on renewal. The pitch fees proposed for the additional markets are £15 a day on Monday and Tuesday and £30 on Thursday and Friday.
There is an additional fee of £35 for Sundays when other markets are not taking place. SADC will also charge extra for double pitches, so some traders could pay approximately £13,000 per year.
Following publicity in the St Albans Times and on social media, both current Charter Market traders and street traders are to be asked for their views on the proposals.
Businesses, residents and other organisations will also have an opportunity to voice their support for the move or raise any concerns.
Councillors on the strategy and resources committee have now decided to put the plans on hold until June while conversations were held with those who will be most affected.
Council leader Cllr Chris White, chair of the committee, said: “We have listened to people who will be impacted by these proposals and have acted by deciding to look at this initiative in granular detail.
“We want to make sure that our plans will get the support as far as possible of everyone involved, particularly our wonderful traders who contribute so much to the local economy as well as the vibrancy of the city centre.
“I will be talking personally to the street traders, explaining our amended plans, taking on board feedback and deciding on the best way forward with senior council officers.
“The committee felt this was the sensible way to proceed and I will begin the process by holding conversations with the street traders.
“I know there have been some real concerns about the extra costs they might incur and we need to nail that along with other issues.
“We want to make sure, for instance, that the monthly Sunday antiques and vegan markets are not adversely impacted and that city centre businesses are behind the proposals.
“Extending our hugely successful markets to offer people small-scale ones on non-Charter Market days has the potential to be a positive move.
“There is the prospect of more opportunities for traders, more choice for shoppers and more vibrancy in the city centre. These conversations will allow us to ensure that if we go ahead with the plan, we do so in the most viable way.”
Greens leader Cllr Simon Grover said: “The attention given to this badly-managed proposal, through the St Albans Times and social media, certainly helped to get a better result than we might have hoped for at the committee.
“Clearly feeling under pressure, the Lib Dems announced one change before the debate on their proposals even got started. Then as we pointed out more and more dubious aspects of the plan, they stepped back even further, ultimately agreeing to allow further consultation and more time to think through alternatives.
“There are many stakeholders in the market who clearly did not feel they had been given a chance to voice their opinions on what the council was proposing to do. Not just the street traders themselves, but market traders, permanent businesses, the BID and of course the public.
“My main objections were twofold: firstly the speed at which this was being rushed through, with a short consultation, a quick decision at a committee, then immediate implementation of the new markets and hugely increased charges. I asked what the rush was for, but received no answer on that. My second main objection was around the income the council would receive from this. The committee was given no figures for what the revised proposal would bring in, yet we were being asked to approve it. As I said at the meeting, this attempt to push the revised proposal through blind was irresponsible and simply wrong. That’s no way for a way for a council to behave, and we should not have been put in that position.
“Hopefully now we have the opportunity to think through this issue more carefully and come up with something that works as well as it can for all stakeholders, and doesn’t put local companies out of business.”
