COMMENT: Covered Market report puts finger on key issue

Oxford's Covered Market

Oxford's Covered Market

First published in News

JIM Campbell makes an exceptionally good point among the recommendations for the future of the Covered Market when he says it is not just there as a property to rent out and that the city council needs to make its view on the asset’s role clearer.

Mr Campbell and his colleagues on the scrutiny committee have been looking at the running of the market, amidst the on-going dispute over rent increases for traders.

To be fair, Oxford City Council does have a financial duty to administer its assets properly but there has been a feeling in the past it takes that to such a point that there is a danger of the market’s long-term future, vitality and independent identity being damaged.

Councillor Colin Cook disputes this, assuring us that the council does see the market as a heritage asset.

It is good to hear because we maintain our position that the Covered Market is a rare jewel that should be treasured, with the council and traders working together to make it prosper.

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:34am Fri 31 Jan 14

hammerthebarstewards says...

The Covered Market should be taken out of Oxford City Councils hands and put into the hands of an Independent Administrator! There should be a New Constitution that ensures that the Covered Market remains as an integral part of Oxford City's heritage for ever if that is possible. Rents and other charges should be set at a fair market rate by the Administrator which should allow traders to be able to make reasonable profits bearing in mind that they are now competing with the Internet which as we all should know is driving prices of many goods down therefore the chance to make profits in High Street and Market Stores even more difficult, add to that Oxford City Council continually trying to increase revenue from the Covered Market and sooner or later the Market Store rents and charges will become totally uneconomic! We should all know that in general the people elected to Oxford City Council have no clue of the economic realities of businesses because most of them are Socialists who are only interested in spending other people's money!
The Covered Market should be taken out of Oxford City Councils hands and put into the hands of an Independent Administrator! There should be a New Constitution that ensures that the Covered Market remains as an integral part of Oxford City's heritage for ever if that is possible. Rents and other charges should be set at a fair market rate by the Administrator which should allow traders to be able to make reasonable profits bearing in mind that they are now competing with the Internet which as we all should know is driving prices of many goods down therefore the chance to make profits in High Street and Market Stores even more difficult, add to that Oxford City Council continually trying to increase revenue from the Covered Market and sooner or later the Market Store rents and charges will become totally uneconomic! We should all know that in general the people elected to Oxford City Council have no clue of the economic realities of businesses because most of them are Socialists who are only interested in spending other people's money! hammerthebarstewards
  • Score: 5

5:09pm Fri 31 Jan 14

King Joke says...

Hammer, surely if the City Council were the economic realists you'd like them to be, they'd increase rents until only mobile phone and coffee shops could afford to occupy the Market?

If you want rents to be suppressed below market value to encourage small independents to stay in business then fine, I'd agree, but it would have little to do with economics. It would be a political decision to place amenity value on something that is less profitable, it all sounds a bit lefty to me.
Hammer, surely if the City Council were the economic realists you'd like them to be, they'd increase rents until only mobile phone and coffee shops could afford to occupy the Market? If you want rents to be suppressed below market value to encourage small independents to stay in business then fine, I'd agree, but it would have little to do with economics. It would be a political decision to place amenity value on something that is less profitable, it all sounds a bit lefty to me. King Joke
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree