Granville Arcade traders to be charged to stay open past 5:30pm

[story]

This has been mentioned in the chitter-chatter thread, but I think this merits a thread of its own.

InShops Ltd, the landlords who took over from LAP, have sent a letter to traders in Granville Arcade (Brixton Village).

Letter is dated 2 Feb 2012. I'm going to precis it here.

A letter was previously sent to traders (27 July, 31 Aug 2011) regarding the late night opening of the arcade, with the suggestion that hours be extended to midnight some nights.

Late night opening was granted as a concession (not a right) in 2010 by LAP; there was a suggestion that any extra costs would be covered by the traders. InShops took over from LAP in May 2010, and this was never followed up.

Late night opening is clearly successful, but has resulted in additional costs, for which traders are thus far not charged. There is more waste and mess generated by the extra people, and "responsible management demands that in order to maintain a safe, clean environment, additional resources are required. It is clearly unreasonable to expect those traders who, for whatever reason, cannot trade outside the contractual core hours specified in their tenancy agreements and licences, to bear a proportion of those costs."

On 27 July 2011 all traders were invited to register interest in staying open, and indicate willingness to pay a levy towards extra costs. InShops were given the impression that a representative of the traders would become involved with negotiations, but it was never clear to InShop which traders were being represented, and the rep later withdrew from the process.

The concession (not right) to late-night opening was granted on the basis that the extra costs would be shared out fairly. InShop have had a "disappointing response" to their efforts to formalise the arrangement. This letter includes the pro-forma previously circulated in July, and traders who want to continue with late-night opening are invited to register their interest and confirm their agreement to contribute to costs, which will be recharged to them.

There is no obligation to trade outside the hours set out in the contract (see below).

The present situation is "no longer sustainable" and "consequently any trader who wishes to continue doing so has one final opportunity to register their interest." This opportunity will be withdrawn after 10 Feb 2012, after which traders who have not signed the form will be "required to revert to the hours specified in their tenancy/licence agreement" with effect from 16 March 2012. If not enough traders sign up, then the concession will be withdrawn from all traders, even those who have signed. Then Market Row and Granville Arcade will both "revert to contractual trading times".

Terms:

Traders are required to confirm that they wish to continue trading between 5:30pm and 9:30pm on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. (Note that this is half an hour earlier than is currently the case.)

Traders will agree to accept responsibility for making sure customers are out of the market in time for the Operational Management Team to clear and close up. If traders then do not comply, management reserves the right to revert back to normal closing of 5:30pm.

Traders will agree to pay a levy of £75 per week, one week in advance, against additional costs.

Traders accept and understand that the proposed continuation of extended opening is made "without prejudice to the management's right to review the situation at any time" and revert back to normal trading hours.

In the absence of a workable arrangement, with effect from March 16 2012, trading hours will be

Monday to Saturday 8:00am to 5:30pm
Sunday 11:00am to 5:00 pm

Traders must confirm that they have adequate third party indemnity insurance to cover extended opening hours.

The pro forma should be signed and returned to management by 10 Feb 2012. If this is not done, it will be assumed that that trader does not wish to trade during extended hours.



Apologies for the long tract of writing.

I spoke with a trader this afternoon, who told me that there are lots of individuals in the arcades, but no leader or spokesperson has emerged who might negotiate with management. Some are saying "I'll sign" while others are saying they won't.

One person said that it feels like blackmail: everyone has to sign to support those who choose to sign.

I suppose this issue will brew and develop over coming weeks. I though it better to have a dedicated thread than have to trawl through chitter-chatter for news and updates.

 

[editor]

 

[Laughing Toad]

What's the issue Story? At the very worst the traders will be "required to revert to the hours specified in their tenancy/licence agreement".

The point of signing a tenancy/licence agreement is to demonstrate. . . . you know. . . . agreement.

 

[story]

Well, several things:

It seems to me that £75 per week (more than £10 a day, and late-night trading is only 3 evenings) is pretty steep for a bit of extra clearing up. Restaurateurs may be able to cover the cost, but those boutique shops like 2'6 could struggle.

What other "additional costs" are a problem for InShop?

Why is late-night trading being shortened by half an hour? If restaurateurs have to ensure that punters are out in time for the clear up and prompt closing of the arcades, then they can't really take orders much after about 8:30 or 9:00 at the very latest. That's going to be detrimental to the market.

It seems to me fairly stupid to potentially hasten the end of the "bubble" (as someone on the chitter-chatter thread called it), when it is so clearly an ongoing asset.

While there is no obligation for management to support the independent and slightly quirky nature of the markets, I wonder at the lack of understanding this seems to indicate. It is a business, and they have to make money, but it seems self-evident to me that managing the Arcades can include a policy of supporting and working with the emerging situation and helping it to thrive, rather than simply trying to cream a profit off the top, and in a way that will necessarily squeeze the traders (and guess where the cost will then be placed? with punters, driving up prices, and potentially putting some punters off.)

I'm sure there's also stuff I've not thought of yet.

 

[boohoo]

£75 does seem a high cost.

This additional cost will mean that the restaurants will have to put their prices up.

As some of them have become nicely established, why stay in Brixton?

And if it goes back to normal hours, it might be the end of Brixton's newest tourist attraction.

 

[story]

But it's not just a tourist attraction, boohoo.

I go there: I wander about, stop to chat with friends (who are also not tourists), maybe have a bite to eat, just generally enjoy the very fact that we have the arcades open in the evening.

You make a good point about a restaurant that is crammed into a small unit, no public loos, chilliness (blankets for punters are now pretty standard) etc. deciding to set up somewhere else.

 

[story]

Also, the long-term traders like Dagon, and fruit and veg places: they say that they have benefited from the new set up: people come to eat, check out the other stalls, end up buying fruit and veg, spices, things they've not tried before.

It's unlikely that those traders will sign up. So they'll have no right to choose, from one week to the next, whether it's worth staying open. As things stand, if it's this cold or the Victoria line is down, they can decide on the day that it's probably not worth staying open.. or that it is. If they don't sign, they cannot ever open; if they do, they have to make up the extra £75 per week. No more haggling, bartering, about an extra tangerine or bunch of slightly tired callaloo for us punters then. Price is price, and it's higher than it was.

 

[quimcunx]

They should at least be negotiating for later opening hours.

Hard to estimate the extra cost to In Shops. Electricity provision. A couple of security people (on minimum wages obvs) wandering around from 5.30 to 9.30/10pm/midnight 3 nights a week. And extra couple of hours pay to a cleaner or two x3 (on minimum wage obvs). Extra money for another dumpster collection. divided by number of units opening late.

I was about to say at least they're not trying to pass costs onto other market traders but it's not like they've not already been stimmying them anyway.

 

[story]

They should certainly make available to traders a breakdown of costs.

And this thing about the traders withdrawing from negotiations: I'm wondering how diligent management was about encouraging and following up and enabling them to stay involved.

There's little doubt, though, that the traders appear to have dropped the ball on this. Maybe they thought the issue would just kinda go away after LAP sent their letter and InShop took over...

 

[Rushy]

Have I understood this correctly? In light of there being no single representative of the traders the managers have asked them to confirm individually whether they want to extend the agreed contractual opening hours and stay open late. Only those who want to will be asked to pay about £18 a day towards the costs of doing so and if not enough want to do so then it will be considered economically unviable. And they have been required to provide evidence that they are adequately insured.

Doesn't exactly sound dreadful although I can't quite understand the ratinale for closing to be brought forward to 9.30. And surely the traders have been there long enough to sort out a committee and chose a representative.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

You make a good point about a restaurant that is crammed into a small unit, no public loos, chilliness (blankets for punters are now pretty standard) etc. deciding to set up somewhere else.

It's reasons like this that I still stand by my idea that Woolworths should have been made into a food hall!

 

[story]

No, it's not dreadful, Rushy; but it is counter-productive. And greedy, shortsighted, blinkered...

 

[Dan U]

this is pretty weird to me.

i can understand that the landlord wishes to cover costs for later opening. but why close things at 9.30pm. those places could make a mint when its warmer and stay open till 11pm or whatever. seems really self defeating to me by the landlords that they could effectively kill off all this new business - and new rent - with an earlier closing.

its also seems self defeating to me that the traders haven't got themselves organised (if that is true of course). surely they want to have a business in 6 months time.

 

[Rushy]

I agree that it sounds like the traders have dropped the ball. To me the letter reads as a warning to the traders that if they want to make the current informal short term late opening arrangements into a long term formal arrangement they need to get their shit together as a group and make a clear joint proposal. I imagine the 9.30 deadline is either designed to whip up a reaction or simply because of an unrelated issue such as noise.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

No, it's not dreadful, Rushy; but it is counter-productive. And greedy, shortsighted, blinkered...

and
"InShop have had a "disappointing response" to their efforts to formalise the arrangement. "
from your post you would qualify as what now the proverbial has hit the fan?

 

[story]

Eh?

Could you clarify the question please, wemakeyousoundb

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

OK
wasn't the lack of response from the traders to the landlord "counter-productive. And greedy, shortsighted, blinkered" knowing that it was unlikely the landlord was going to just drop it as it is increasing their costs and there was a "sort of but details not set" agreement that the costs would be shared?

I'm not on either side tbh, but anyone with half a braincell could have seen this coming, especially if the landlord has made some attempts at trying to solve this informally.
I'm sure there'll be lots of aggravation on both sides before they come to a mutually agreeable understanding anyway.

 

[story]

I agree that the traders could have dealt with this better. I already said so up there somewhere.

 

[Gramsci]

I agree that it sounds like the traders have dropped the ball. To me the letter reads as a warning to the traders that if they want to make the current informal short term late opening arrangements into a long term formal arrangement they need to get their shit together as a group and make a clear joint proposal. I imagine the 9.30 deadline is either designed to whip up a reaction or simply because of an unrelated issue such as noise.

I think there may be a 10pm planning restriction to protect residents . But im not sure and am trying to find out.

I know that one of the front units had planning restrictions on it when it got change of use to cafe to protect residential properties.

 

[fortyplus]

Yes, perhaps we did drop the ball. We have businesses to run, we work long hard cold hours anyway, and we don't have time to go to meetings to discuss how to co-ordinate our response to the landlords. Yes, it's impractical for the landlords to negotiate with each tenant individually. ** But we shouldn't have to negotiate**. If the landlords had any sort of a vision for the place, they'd understand how it has prospered and is thriving, and would know that for the sake of the market they should continue to absorb these costs.
No one wants to organise to make a fuss - a proposed boycott of Sunday opening tomorrow didn't get off the ground and, with there being a waiting-list for units, everyone's worried that they'll lose their place and their livelihood if they step out of line. But this sort of approach will quickly kill off the waiting list.

There's a lot about InShops' approach that has made lots of us very angry. Like giving us just a week to decide - the letter went out yesterday, 3rd Feb, and the deadline is next Friday, 10th. There's no signatory to the letter ("return the forms to the market office") - so we can't answer back. Cowardly and unprofessional.

The money is certainly an issue, but it's not the main issue. We don't know what we're getting for our £25 a night. For example, it's supposed to include security, but there's not even a number for us to contact them if there's a security issue.

 

[snowy_again]

But their longer term 'vision' for the place might be a bit more long term than yours. By proving that current new Market / food stalls can't bring a collective voice allows them to bring in larger more corporate chains with staff whose jobs aren't based around service / front of house. You all have brought them national and international attention. Your strength innegotiating a fair balanced alteration to your current lease negotiations comes through working together. Lose all of you and inshops lose their model and reputation. Losing shops as individuals means they will replace you with new tendants on new, worse terms or bigger 'chain' enterprises.

As pointed out above, the maths doesn't work. As a customer I want better loos and longer hours. Ask them to invest for their extra income? I don't want what spitalfields is now, nor to lose the veg / fish / household goods that exist now. I would hate for a branch of giraffe to open but that seems what in stores wants.

Best of luck.

 

[quimcunx]

Agreed.

 

[fortyplus]

To be fair, I really don't think they have that vision. InShops itself, in its other centres (see its website: http://www.inshopsretail.com/), doesn't chase the national chain anchor tenants - it provides affordable units for small, local businesses. National chains wouldn't want the small, irregular inconvenient units in the Granville (that's why LAP wanted to redevelop it, until it was listed). I think InShops thought the were getting one thing, something like its other centres, based on shopping not eating, which they know how to manage, and found itself with a place getting hyped to the nines in the national press as a place to eat out, and it's a model they don't really understand. They're Scousers, not Londoners; their local management - inherited from LAP - are, - as charitably as I can put it it - competent at administration, but consistently treat late opening as an irritation rather than a benefit. From both Liverpool and local management, all communications with tenants are couched in a tone that treats us, their customers, as children/trouble/minions/serfs, rather than as partners who are contributing to their success. The lack of transparency and accountability has got worse under InShops than it was under LAP.

With all the press hype about Brixton Village, we regularly get people turning up at six or so on Monday or Tuesday to an empty, shuttered-up market - asking, "where's the place with all the cool restaurants"? Instead of cutting back on evening opening, a management in tune with the place would be extending it to the rest of the week. It really isn't rocket science that people with disposable income tend to have day jobs.

 

[fjydj]

Instead of cutting back on evening opening, a management in tune with the place would be extending it to the rest of the week. It really isn't rocket science that people with disposable income tend to have day jobs.

its crazy to fill the place with food outlets that are only open for lunch. Staying open to 10.30 Tuesday through to weekend would make it a lot more accessible… and put more bike parking stands in the front on CHL.

 

[quimcunx]

Well, if they don't know this then you're really going to have to take on the task of getting yourselves organised and showing them how an alternative would work, being the ones to come forward to work in partnership. Make them understand that this is an opportunity they should grab with both hands. It's developed into a unique business model. And they need to see the opportunity. Easier said than done admittedly.

How is business holding up in the winter anyway? The mild weather (up until last week) maybe hasn't given a realistic view of what winter trade will be like in the future. Even then it's a case of remembering that what's fine for wearing wandering in and out of shops is not going to be enough when you're sat outsideish for half an hour or more.

 

[bosie]

ImShops is ultimately a business and whatever traders think about their motives and decision-making the only way that they will get their 'vision' across to the landlords is to speak their language.

If a significant proportion of traders think that a successful business model exists based on late night opening 7 days a week to a minimum time of say 10pm, then this needs to be backed up by cold hard figures - identify which traders support the model, maybe get some stats about footfall during the evenings (a couple of people with clipboards at each entrance counting the people that came into the market), info on takings that are made during the extended hours, a quick questionnaire/survey to customers about what they'd like to see (extended hours, toilets, buying/eating habits, spend etc). Present to InShops what financial gain (because ultimately this is what they are interested in) could me made by them if they invested in this model. Realistically they would expect increased rent to cover additional hours, but if you all don't like the current £75 for 3 nights reduced late hours opening - make them an offer.

If the deadline is too short, write a collective letter asking for some more time - say that you are collectively (at least in part) working up a response with a proposal that could be mutually beneficial. If they think that this won't just drag on without an outcome surely they would be willing to give a bit more time?

Maybe I am being overly simplistic and naive, I don't underestimate how hard it must be to run your own business and all that it entails and still have the time and energy to do all this as well, coupled with landlords that obviously dont get whats been achieved in the mrket. However, it does appear that all of your hard work and effort to make the market a success will be wasted if you don't do something.

You could argue that it is ultimately InShops job to look at the viability of a successful long-term business model - but if they are unwilling or unable to do this then you have got to take matters into your own hands. Do any of the traders know anyone that could help work up a business plan/proposal? Maybe it would even be worth all chipping in and paying someone to pull one together for you?

The one thing I would say you have in your favour is th even though there may in fact be a waiting list for units in the market, many of these will be based on how things currently are, including late nights and the mix of businesses that are currently there. If this all changes then people will look elsewhere for units.

 

[netbob]

InShops have a profit share deal with LAP, so there will be additional pressure to up the rents and bring in bigger chains IMO.

Is there a traders federation yet? I know people were trying to set one up before SpaceMakers rocked up, but I got the impression that new businesses were discouraged from taking part.

 

[OpalFruit]

I hope the businesses get a good outcome from this. I would use places in Brixton Village far more often if they were open on more evenings. Madness if a building swell of custom and turnover is thwarted by landlords greed.

 

[Crispy]

Doesn't even sound like greed, just disinterest.

 

[fortyplus]

Doesn't even sound like greed, just disinterest.

This. It's the local management who regard evening opening as a thorough inconvenience (which it must be for them) and don't grasp how it has transformed the prosperity of the arcade in the last couple of years. Late Thursdays started as an "experiment" in 2009; then, there must have been a dozen or more vacant units. When we took on our unit, in mid 2010, we had a choice of four vacant ones; a month later, it was fully-let for the first time in living memory. Friday and Saturday evenings, and Sunday daytimes, followed in late 2010 - always as a "concession". Liverpool listen to local management, not to the traders, and this is the real problem.