My name is Geoff Fahey, my partner Debbie Kershaw and I run The Snatch, a popular organic snack and coffee shop in Maesteg Indoor Market, South Wales. The popularity of our business means that we need to expand. The Property Manager at Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC), has the final say on such matters. He is at present citing duplication of trades as the reason for refusing our proposal to provide tables and chairs for our customers. We say that organic food is not the same as non-organic food, therefore there is no duplication. An organic cafe would help increase much needed footfall in the market in general.
If you wish to read our whole story, please continue. It is a lengthy tome, but we feel that the actions of the Property Department at BCBC are threatening our civil liberties, and are taking us a step nearer to an unacceptable form of government. If you wish to cut to the chase, please scroll down to blogdate August 14th where we have attempted to summarise the events that have resulted in this online dispute between BCBC and ourselves. Please be sure to read other readers comments at the bottom of our blog, and add yours if you so wish. Please keep watching this blog and please tell your friends to tell their friends to do the same.
Thank You, and thank you for reading our blog.
The full story...
Shortly after arriving at Maesteg Market I was elected Chairman by 100% of the Traders. I was advised that the post required me to be the link between Management and Traders. Policy related enquiries are made on behalf of all traders because all traders are affected by policy.
We first enquired about market policy 11 months ago. Since trying to discover information about the policy which affects our livelihoods, life has become very difficult for us. We find it hard to believe that we are in Europe in 2007 and one person is able to deny discerning diners a table to sit at on the strength of an unsound reason. Had we been allowed a seated area, we had intended to display original art of my own and other local artists, making The Snatch the only organic arts cafe for miles around. 100% of Indoor market traders backed our proposal, and two thirds of traders overall. We have a petition with approx. 500 local names supporting us. Lindsay Tuffin, the editor of the Tasmanian Times, called regularly at the Snatch while staying with relatives in Maesteg. We discussed our problems with him, and he recognised that this was not just an issue about tables and chairs, he very kindly posted an article on his website entitled,
'The fight for rights...in Wales!' , it is a copy of the poster that we distributed around the Borough. The Prince of Wales, a supporter of organic food and farming methods, has personally conveyed his best wishes.
Meanwhile, back at BCBC HQ, the Property Manager holds sway. One trader said that he was aware of the Property Manager visiting Maesteg Market only once in the past eight years. The Property Manager continues to support the view of the tiniest of minorities, whilst citing the non-existent infringement of an unwritten rule as the reason for refusal. This makes for a very peculiar scenario indeed.
It is our belief that if one person in one small Department can exercise this much influence over the potential growth of a business in Maesteg, a town that is, after all, competing for business with Bridgend, then the question is not about the need for tables and chairs in Maesteg Indoor Market but more pressingly, of where to run to with our children.
Please read on.
Below is a brief resume of what has gone before, with some of the more important issues given a special mention. It is our intention to publish correspondence between BCBC and The Snatch as the need arises. Please feel free to add your comments. Thank you.
In the last letter we received from BCBC Property Manager's office, we were advised that there would be no further correspondence from the Property Department with regard to matters that are of great concern to us. This is the second time an officer from the Property Department has expressed a wish to close down communication between us. It is, however, vital those channels of communication remain open in order to clarify the existing anomalies in the ‘unwritten policy’, and to thereby avoid future misunderstandings between Traders and Management. Our last letter listed 16 points that required further clarification. We do not feel secure in not understanding the content of the letter we received through the Regeneration Directorate? which touched on 'unwritten policy'. In seeking an explanation, we are being treated as a nuisance.
As a direct result of seeking clarification of the elusive policy that directly affects the livelihoods of all traders in the market, I have been told by BCBC that my "behaviour is impacting on the reputation of Maesteg Market and its attractiveness as a retailing outlet for shoppers, with potentially damaging impact on other existing stall holders' businesses and the ability in the future of encouraging new tenants to occupy vacant stalls within the market”?
This blog is a golden opportunity for anyone, including the author, who believes there to be any truth in this statement to make your voice heard. The statement is in fact as absurd as it is evidently untrue. Had my behaviour not been witnessed to be impeccable at all times, this statement would have given us great cause for concern.
Since Market ‘policy’ according to the Property Manager is an ‘unwritten policy’, then presumably the Property Manager has to recall it from memory when aspects of it are brought into question? We believe that this method of storing policy is prone to human error. As the policy is ‘not set in stone’, we asked why it is not set in stone, and how a trader could be protected against discrimination and/or personal whim, when this method of policy is employed? The silence that ensued should have come as no surprise, because up until the recent emergence of a few clues as to the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’, which arrived rather peculiarly via the Regeneration Directorate, we have been unable to get a clear policy-related answer in 11 months. Now that we have been given a few clues as to its structure, nobody can make head nor tail of it.
One would imagine that an ‘unwritten policy’ is a flexible policy, constructed to accommodate shifting trends. This particular ‘unwritten policy’ may as well have been consigned to a box marked ‘No Chance’ and locked in a room, in a dark recess of Angel Street marked ‘No Entry to Anyone’.
We have now requested the same information of the Property Manager, under The Freedom of Information Act.
Having read through our tenancy agreement at the outset and finding nothing in it to say that we would not be permitted tables and chairs, we thought it a reasonable assumption that we would be entitled to the same treatment as other traders. We noted that the Property Department appeared to consider a comfortable place to dine as a civilized necessity as they do for the two cafes and one café-cum-delicatessen in Bridgend Indoor Market. There is, incidentally, also a takeaway in Bridgend market, this makes a mockery of the no duplication of trades claim. We fail to see any logic in the Property Managers argument? In view of the preferential treatment enjoyed by traders and customers in Bridgend Market, to deny Maesteg shoppers a place to sit and eat in the Indoor Market is a gross insult. Our customers are being treated as second-class citizens, and we are being treated as if we are in a trading category all of our own.
We would like to see Maesteg market thriving once again. Since the advent of Internet shopping and with the imminent arrival of a Superstore, which will undoubtedly affect many businesses in the town, we believe that the encouragement and promotion of original ideas is the best hope there is of regenerating interest in the Market and the town in general. From the publication ‘Market Trader’ we learn that in successful ethnic markets, food stalls make up 85% of the whole, and do very well as a result. In our opinion, one of the main obstacles to Maesteg Market achieving its full potential, is that some established traders object to duplication of their businesses. We personally believe that healthy competition is great for business, it brings out the best, raises standards and threatens only mediocrity. By the same token, we believe that there is room for 3 more diverse cafes in Maesteg market. We would raise no objection to these cafes selling organic food, and in fact, would encourage them to do so.
There is public demand for a café in the indoor market, our customers are incredulous that they are being denied this most civilised of simple pleasures on the authority of one person. A seated area in the Indoor Market would be easily accessible by wheelchairs and prams. It is a safe and convenient waiting area for buses or taxis. We have suggested to the Property Department that a web cam link to the bus station from all areas of the market would be a great advantage to traders and shoppers alike (nobody is holding their breath). Until there is a comfortable waiting area for buses, and when the weather is inclement, a seated area in the market would serve as a very acceptable alternative waiting room.
We would like to remind the Property Manager that the customer is king. We would remind him also, that the most difficult time for any business is in its first year. Market research is essential, reacting to market trends is vital to sustaining a business. So, when customers advise us of how they would like to spend their money in the market, we listen intently. We will go out of our way to accommodate their wishes. Other traders have commented on how The Snatch has been good for the Indoor Market, with a steadily increasing footfall since our arrival. We are capitalizing upon an old, but successful formula, people will always enjoy eating good, healthy food. Less obstruction from the Property Department when traders are trying to accommodate the desires of discerning customers will only be good for the market. We are keen to know what experience or qualifications the Property Manager or anyone else in the Property Department has, with regard to running a small business, so that we may know who best to discuss our ideas with regarding the regeneration of business in Maesteg Market.
The Property Department have made it clear that their only obligation to us is as Landlord to Tenant. Why is it then, when we read through all of the correspondence between us, it becomes clear that our path has been strewn with Property Department made obstacles from the outset?
The Council have advised us that they are continuing to receive letters regarding our behaviour in the market. We would like to see evidence to support this allegation.
Through seeking policy information we have been accused of various serious misdemeanours. The most serious of these were made against me twice in private by the Market Manager's line manager, who we know to be a qualified surveyor, presumably with a background in running small businesses? I rejected the unsubstantiated allegations out of hand and demanded that they were put in writing so that I could deal with them accordingly. The original harassment allegation was reduced to bad behaviour. This accusation alone is enough to cost us our livelihoods. We absolutely deny this allegation and any subsequent allegations that have been made against us.
It is interesting to note that in the midst of this dispute we were surprised to be told that we may be eligible for grant assistance to move into Maesteg Town Centre, or even to Bridgend Market. We thought we were already in the town centre, and Bridgend Traders were surprised to hear that it had been suggested we move into a Market which is already well served with cafes. What is wrong with encouraging business into Maesteg Market? We are, however, very interested in any financial assistance available to help expand The Snatch.
We have advised the Property Department that the various forms of duplication considered permissible under the ‘policy not to duplicate trades’, are of great interest to us, e.g. ‘ancillary line’ duplication and ‘same tenant’ duplication. We are keen to learn how these seemingly complex policies appear to affect different traders in different ways, so that we may become eligible for inclusion. This information will be indispensable for the many people, including ourselves, who are having difficulty understanding some of the finer points of the ‘unwritten policy’.
We have also advised the Property Department that we are very puzzled by a spokesman for the Council stating that "the authority has a policy not to duplicate trades at the market and Mr Fahey’s application has been turned down” (Gazette May 10th). This was the official reason given for our customers being denied the simple pleasure of sitting at a table, to meet and eat healthy organic food. To maintain this stance is to publicly endorse the view that organic food is the same as non-organic food. We believe that the increasing volumes of evidence to the contrary render this position indefensible. Organic food is good news, the right to sit and eat it should not be an issue.
Access to Unit 2. In time honoured fashion, we purchased Unit 2 for Three thousand pounds. This money represented further investment into our belief in our business and in Maesteg Market. We borrowed the money with the expectation that we would be able to pay it back fairly quickly as a result of our projected increased turnover. We were stopped trading in the unit for three highly contentious reasons, this action has caused our family considerable financial discomfort, we made this clear to the Property Department immediately. The reasons for denying us access are listed below.
1. Because we weren’t insured. In fact we were, and are.
2. Because we hadn’t submitted a plan. But we had explained precisely what equipment would be going into the unit, and the Market Manager had accepted our proposal both verbally and by email, (available upon request) his words were final and in no way vague. The plan was to follow at a later unspecified date. We didn’t think there was any rush, why should there have been, when our plan for Unit 1 was not submitted until some time after we had begun trading.
3. Because of our bad behaviour. We wholly refute this allegation.
Unit 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with our request for a café in the indoor market. In buying Unit 2 we acquired two commercial refrigerators and a large refrigerated display cabinet, all necessary to cope with our expanding business. Not only are we losing income daily through not being able to display food and extending our counter area, we are having to manage our business out of one, under the counter, fridge. We are throwing away large amounts of expensive organic food on a daily basis because we are being denied acces to our refrigeration space. We have advised the Property Department that we are in fact insured to be in Unit 2, but this has yet to be acknowledged. We believe that denying us access to unit 2, is a highly questionable action, which continues to cause us great financial difficulty. This is a fact the Property Department have been made aware of. As a direct result of our being denied access we are having to live off the money we had set aside to invest in catering equipment for unit 2. This highly questionable punishment not only affects us but also our children. We have never before been subjected to this sort of treatment, and have requested that it stops.
We have been advised by BCBC that ‘this is not a bullying tactic, but is the factual and legal position.’ We do not agree.
The current problems have arisen because we have been unable to get a clear definition of the policy that so greatly affects the lives of all traders and the potential prosperity of Maesteg Market. Clarification of all points can only further facilitate the smooth running of the market, by eradicating future misunderstanding, and in doing so allow the market to move towards its full potential.
There is however a chink of light permeating this very cloudy issue. We have been invited to meet with the Property Manager. There are, as we have already mentioned, a few points that will need clarifying in advance of the meeting in order that all present are in full possession of the facts, and to facilitate a balanced discussion. Among other questions we will be asking precisely how many names are required on a petition before the Property Department will acknowledge public will, and the current unacceptable situation is reviewed? I have been contacted by Huw Irranca-Davies' office who have asked for a copy of the petition. Our meeting will be the ideal opportunity for us to present it to the Property Manager.
We have informed the Property Manager that we would like to invite the following interested parties to the meeting:
Huw Irranca Davies MP
Vic Gilbert (SHOUT)
Marcelle Humphreys (Maesteg Traders representative)
Alistair Rosenberg (Bridgend Traders representative)
4 people (To represent a cross section of the public of Maesteg)
Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
Andrew Harrison (Glamorgan Gazette).
We would like to take this opportunity to thank our customers for their continuing support. Also, on behalf of our customers and fellow traders we would like to thank the Property Manager for inviting us to attend what we hope will be a propitious meeting. This is a great opportunity to put the past behind us and begin to turn around the fortunes of Maesteg Market. We sincerely believe that only good can come of it.
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
The Snatch
Maesteg Indoor Market
All correspondence between BCBC and The Snatch is open to public scrutiny.
Please see our appeal which was kindly published by the Editor of the Tasmanian Times.
We live in a catchment area of something in excess of 25,000 people; about five individuals have so far raised objections to our café, yet they continue to call the shots. Is there anyone out there who can help us begin to understand why this is so?
Please take time to read other peoples comments and add your own if you wish. You may remain anonymous, but please let your voice be heard. Please post our web address to anyone in your address book who might be interested in seeing a democratic outcome to this sorry tale. Thank You.
As of today we will be posting a daily diary of events. if nothing happens, then we will tell you that nothing has happened.
Thursday July 5th 2007 12:46pm
Today we received a second supportive letter from Buckingham Palace.
We have heard nothing from the Council.
Friday July 6th 2007 11:10am
No news from the Council.
Monday July 9th 2007 11:31am
No news from the Council.
Tuesday July 10th 2007 4:27pm
We delivered our petition to Huw Irranca-Davies’ office.
We have still heard nothing from the Property Department.
As we have no doubt the Property Manager will want to make his views clear to us, we have invited him to join us online. The following email was sent to the property manager today.
Dear Property Manager, We are concerned at not having heard if the situation regarding unit 2 has been reviewed yet? As you will be aware, the current position is proving to be a very expensive experience for us. If it has been resolved, could you please advise us what we need to do to gain access? While we wait for our meeting, please feel free to post a comment on our blog. http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
Paperwork is expensive, and a needless waste of resources. As this is a matter of public interest we would like to continue our dispute online. This will be more convenient than a gathering in the market place and is open to a wider audience.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw & Geoff Fahey
Wednesday July 11th 2007
No news from the Council
Thursday July 12th 2007 11:31am
No word from the Council.
We sent a letter to Gordon Brown, the new Prime Minister today. Below is a copy of that letter.
The Snatch
Maesteg Indoor Market
Maesteg
Mid Glamorgan
12th July 2007
Dear Prime Minister
Our town, Maesteg, is currently undergoing regeneration. Yet, as you will see from our blog, http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com, we are encountering enormous and illogical resistance regarding our plans to expand our very popular organic snack and coffee shop. Our business is the first of its kind in the area, and has increased footfall in the market since our arrival 11 months ago.
100% of Indoor Market traders (it is they who would be most affected), two thirds of traders overall and approx 500 members of the public signed a petition supporting our proposal in the first couple of weeks of our campaign. It would clearly be an advantageous move for the town. However, the Property Department at Bridgend County Borough Council has taken a very peculiar and rigid stance on the matter, as you will see in our blog.
Could you please advise us on how you think regeneration should be achieved? We would also appreciate your views regarding organic food, and the right to sit and eat it?
We have received two letters from the office of the Prince of Wales personally conveying his best wishes and confirming his support of organic food and farming methods.
Your view would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw & Geoff Fahey
A copy of this letter will be posted on our blog.
Friday July 13th 2007 3:30pm
No word from the council.
We note that Unit 3, which we expressed interest in for a cafe is still empty 10 weeks after the previous tenant vacated it.
Unit 6c has a Unit to Let sign in the window, this is odd because the Property Department advised us that there is a list of people waiting to come into the market? We asked to see a copy of the list and were advised that we were not permitted because of the Data Protection Act. We have written to explain that we are not in the slightest bit interested in the names and addresses of the people on the list, but are very interested in their business proposals, as this information has a direct bearing on the livelihoods of every trader in the market. Nothing has been forthcoming? Where are the people on the list?
Have a good weekend.
Monday July 16th 11:40am
No word from the council.
Today we posted the following email to the people listed below.
Hello, we have been trying to get a reply from the Property Department to no avail. As you will see from our blog http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com this is a matter of great importance to us and to the traders and people of Maesteg. If you cannot help with this matter, could you please post this message on to someone who can?
Thank You
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
Dr. Jo Farrar (Chief Executive Officer)
Ian Aitken (Property manager)
Louise Fradd (Regeneration Directorate)
Cheryl Green (Leader)
Cllr Bob Burns (attached to property department)
Paul Carter (Markets manager)
Linda Smith (Access officer)
Deborah Rees (Editor Glamorgan Gazette)
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog.
Wednesday July 18th 2007 5:00pm
We received a letter from the Council yesterday stating that they would be happy for us to have a meeting, but not with all the interested parties we wished to attend. We replied by email today, and have accepted that the Property managers office might be a bit tight on space with a delegation of ten. We have now requested that just four people be permitted to attend, they are Huw Irranca-Davies MP, a councillor, the vice chair to be of Maesteg traders, and the Chairman of Bridgend traders. we have also requested that we be permitted to record the meeting so that we may publish accurately all that is discussed, should the need arise.
We also requested that ‘same trader’ and ‘ancillary’ duplication are explained to further our understanding of how the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ works in practice. We have requested this information in advance of the meeting.
We were also advised that we have been provided with answers to the queries we raised previously, this mail must have got lost in the post, we have requested another copy be sent.
We felt that the tone of the letter we received from the Property Department was more friendly than of late.
Thursday July 19th 2007 5:30pm
Yesterday’s email was sent to the following recipients.
Huw Irranca-Davies MP
Dr Jo Farrar (Chief Executive Officer)
Ian Aitken (Property Manager)
Louise Fradd (Regeneration Directorate)
Cllr Cheryl Green (Leader)
Cllr Bob Burns
Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
Property Department
We were advised electronically that Huw Irranca-Davies, Louise Fradd and Cheryl Green did not receive theirs. We will try to contact Huw Irranca-Davies’ office, and presume that LF and CG will be forwarded a copy by their colleagues.
Apart from an electronically generated message from the Property Department requesting our postal address, nobody has yet acknowledged or responded to our email.
Friday July 20th
We have received another prompt response from the Council. We are grateful for this and will respond on Monday.
Have a good weekend.
Monday July 23rd 11:00am
We replied to the Property Department this morning, below is a copy of the email.
The Snatch
23rd July 2007
Dear Mrs Blick,
Please Note. The drawn out correspondence you are keen to avoid is only occurring because you are replying to our mail but you have steadfastly avoided answering our questions. We have asked the same thing many times in many different ways over the past eleven months. In a nutshell we just want a clue as to how the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ applies to different traders in different ways. Our questions have always been simple and direct, we do not understand your apparent reluctance to answer them. We apologise for the length of the letter you are about to read, it is a resume of some of the questions we have put to the Property Department since first arriving at the market.
We thank you for your prompt reply. We are pleased to note that this important matter is now receiving the full attention it deserves. If it carries on at this pace our issue will be settled in no time at all. If no other good comes of our problems, we hope that future queries about policy will be dealt with as they arise. This might be an opportune time to make a written record of the ‘unwritten policy’, and to make it clear and accessible to all affected by it.
Now that we are corresponding again we have dispensed with the need for a meeting, or paperwork. All relevant parties are aware of our blog, and most of the facts are on the table for all to see, we are in fact having our meeting online, please feel free to respond online to save us printing extracts of your letters for our readers, and in order for everyone to get the full unedited picture. Whilst you do not see the need for the Chair of Bridgend Market Traders or the Vice Chair-to-be of Maesteg Traders to be present, (your letter 19th July) we do, and in this marvellous age of computer wizardry we may all be present, public and all, with no congestion in Angel Street. All we need now in order to move forward is for you to respond to the content of our emails. We require answers to the many queries we have put to you over the past eleven months, which are pertinent to the security of all traders. You stated in your letter of 13th July “I consider that I have provided you with answers to the queries you have raised” We did not receive the answers to the 16 queries we put to you regarding Louise Fradd’s letter of 30th May, which provided us with a peek at the very confusing ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’. Would you kindly forward us another copy? We have repeated some of our questions below.
In your letter of 19th July you suggest that you do not wish to enter into extensive correspondence. We too are keen to avoid this, and had we been receiving answers to our numerous queries over the past eleven months, correspondence would have ended a long time ago. We do, however, wish to retain a hard copy as events unfold, as we fear we could not take on board the full complexities of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ at a single meeting. We hope you will appreciate this fact. We believe that all problems that have arisen are as a direct result of our initially not knowing, and then not understanding, the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’. We hope we will now finally learn how it works so that we may concentrate our efforts on promoting our unique organic arts café, which can only serve to regenerate interest in Maesteg Market and therefore have a knock-on effect in the town.
As we have explained on numerous occasions, it is a matter of great urgency that we expand our business at your earliest convenience, in order to cope with the increased business we have built, and to utilise the refrigeration space we have bought, but are being denied access to. We have already cleaned pigeon faeces and feathers off the counter and also noted that the bakery counter has been defecated upon. We realise we are not technically allowed behind the counter but thought it a good idea in the interest of health and hygiene, to clear up the mess, we hope we did the right thing. Please advise. As Paul suggested back in March, being a food counter, Unit 2, needs a roof over it, food counters could really do with shutters all round to prevent the pigeons that occasionally get in causing a serious health hazard.
At the moment we are being made to look foolish as we struggle to cope with the business we have generated, in a unit we outgrew a long time ago. Fortunately, all customers and traders are aware of our situation and are sympathetic in waiting, as we are, for a more extensive menu and a more comfortable place to enjoy our fine food. We have stated many times now that we do not feel secure in not understanding the ‘unwritten policy not set in stone’. We appreciate you have no desire to write down these rules, but we do, because it is the livelihood of traders that are at risk should they be broken. The ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ presented to us by Louise Fradd in her letter of 30th May appears to be an ad hoc policy, which is factually inaccurate and riddled with anomalies that require further explanation in order to protect the interests of all traders. As you allow us snippets of policy, so we will make a hard copy of it, in order that future traders do not find themselves encountering the problems that are currently blighting our lives. You have shown us that ‘ancillary’ and ‘same trader’ duplication are permissible and exist in both Maesteg and Bridgend markets, we have asked many times how we become eligible for inclusion in such an advantageous trading position, we have yet to receive any answers to these simple questions.
In your letter of 13th July you state. “You have asked for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I believe that this Act gives you the ability to ask the Council for access to any recorded information it holds.
Whilst we are more than a little confused by the content of Louise Fradd’s letter of 30th May in which she made reference to, among other things, the Property Manager’s view not being a recent policy (See 1 below). We are hoping and praying that there would have been some sort of meeting or agreement to discuss the pros and cons of such an unusual policy, otherwise it could have been made up over one or two drinks with mates down the local, or otherwise been borne of ennui whilst sitting in a traffic jam, heaven forbid we have come to that.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we request the following information.
1. Louise Fradd (Director of Regeneration) stated in her letter of 30th May “However, the Property Managers view that it would be undesirable for more than one café to be operating from the market is not a recent policy” If Louise Fradd is aware that the Property Manager’s view is not a recent policy, then presumably she has some idea when it was made. We would like to see the minutes from the meeting when the policy was made.
2. Who proposed the policy?
3. We would like to know the date of the meeting when the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ was first proposed?
4. In view of the problems it has caused, who decided that it should be ‘unwritten and not set in stone’ Why was it decided it would not be written down?
5. Does the Property Department or any other Department have any other ‘unwritten policies, not set in stone?
6. What was the catalyst which created the need for the policy to be implemented in the first place, when the market was thriving with duplication abounding, then as now?
7. Who sat on the panel that implemented the policy, was there a Councillor present?
8. WHY DOESN’T THE POLICY APPLY TO ALL TRADERS IN THE SAME WAY?
9. We are keen to know the criteria necessary for us to become eligible for the ‘ancillary’ and ‘same trader’ duplication currently being enjoyed by other traders.
10. With such a flexible policy being employed, what safeguards were discussed and implemented to prevent a trader falling foul of nepotism and/or personal whim?
11. We have asked many times to see evidence to support your allegations of our being a nuisance, or of bringing down the reputation of the market, or of any intimidating behaviour towards anyone, or of any of the complaints that you continue to receive about our being a ‘nuisance’ in the market. We would like to see the evidence.
12. To implement a policy that prevents healthy competition is peculiar to say the least. To cite ‘no duplication of trades’ as the reason for refusal when we had not proposed to duplicate any trade also has an enormous question mark hanging over it. We have reminded the Property Department on many occasions that we are selling a completely different product to the outdoor café. For the Property Manager’s to stand by his view/policy is to endorse the belief that there is no difference between organic and non-organic food, this is despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, this situation is beyond our comprehension. To apply logic to this type of policy, if the Property Manager assures us that grass is red, then red it is, to the hills, to the hills!
We note that in the Gazette article 10th May, our application was being referred to as just that, a spokesman for the council said, “the authority has a policy not to duplicate trades at the market and Mr Fahey’s application has been turned down.” We had a very close working relationship with Paul Carter at the time and were not aware of anybody waiting to come into the market. However by 30th May, Louise Fradd was advising us that “The individuals on the waiting list have been contacted in relation to units 3 and 4, and have expressed an interest in taking over these stalls, and it would be inappropriate for you to be considered ahead of those on the list.” You (Fiona Blick) advised us in your letter of 13th June that you were “in the process of letting Units 3 and 4 to separate businesses” Unit 3 is still empty 11 weeks after being vacated and Unit 6c has a ‘Stall to let’ sign in the window. We asked to see a copy of the waiting list from this time and you explained in your letter of 9th May that it would not be permitted “as this information is covered by the Data Protection Act,” we wrote to tell you that we were not in the slightest bit interested in the personal details of the people on the waiting list, but were keen to know their business proposals as this information would have a direct impact upon the livelihoods of all traders in the Market. You chose to ignore our reasonable request. We would like to see the list of businesses that were waiting to come into the Market on the 16th April which was when we first learned that the tenant was leaving Units 3 and 4, and when we first expressed our interest to Paul Carter.
13. What qualifications relating to commerce or small businesses does the Property Manager or anyone else in the Property Department hold? If none, on whose expert advice was the yet to be revealed content of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ based?
14. Long standing traders, some of whom have been ‘incubating’ in the Market for sixty years, have assured us that there has always been duplication of trades, with tales of nine butchers trading at one time in a thriving Bridgend market, and of three fruit and veg stalls in Maesteg Indoor Market, and all doing well. Can this be true? We would like to see the records of businesses that have traded in Maesteg and Bridgend Market over the past sixty years.
To save time and trees, we would be pleased if you would like to use our blog to reply: http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
We have been electronically informed that Louise Fradd is not receiving our emails, as she has played a large part in our issue we would be grateful if you could forward her a copy. Thank you.
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog at: http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
Tuesday July 24th 6:40am
Yesterday we received a letter from Peter Black AM asking how it was all going. We emailed him this morning to thank him for his concern and advised him of our blog address.
Wednesday July 25th 2:05pm
Today we sent the following email to the people listed at the bottom.
The Snatch
25th July 2007
Statement
1.We wish to see Maesteg Market thriving again and have been working long and hard to that aim for the past 11 months.
2. We believe in real regeneration.
3. Fact: We tried to provide tables for our customers to sit and eat a tasty, healthy, well-presented meal. The Property Manager refused our application because of a ‘policy not to duplicate trades in the market’. Our only crime has been to pursue the fact that we are in no way duplicating any business for miles around and, anyway, duplication abounds in both Maesteg and Bridgend Markets today as it always has done. We find it incredible that the whole entity that is BCBC, from Dr. Jo Farrar (CEO) and Cheryl Green (Leader) down are, in their silence, appearing to endorse the views of the Property Manager.
4. Having lived in other parts of the U.K., we are shocked by the number of people who come to The Snatch and are brave enough to ask us “What is organic food?” It suggests there are a whole lot more in the community who don’t know.
It is, in our view, a reflection on the values of the Council that everyone from the youngest to the oldest, from the well educated to the not so well educated is not made fully aware of this most basic of facts.
We believe that BCBC and the Glamorgan Gazette should be shouting from the rooftops about the health benefits associated with eating organic food, and of the risks associated with non-organic food. This is a hot, and getting hotter topic in mainstream media. There is no need to pepper the land and our food with chemicals. People should be left in no doubt whatsoever of the associated benefits and risks in what we eat.
A number of people hold great sway over our lives. It is vital that these people are fully aware of current thinking and open enough about their own views, which have a bearing on the health of others. We do not feel it is acceptable for people in authority to remain silent on matters that affect lives.
We are keen to know of the views held by the following people about the differences between organic and non-organic food, and of the right to sit and eat it. In view of the millions of pounds that have been spent on Maesteg we would also like a short statement on how the following people believe regeneration works and on ‘town branding’, and how to do it.
We thank HRH The Prince of Wales for being the first to make his views clear to us.
We have not heard from the Prime Minister but imagine he’s up to his Wellie tops at the moment. We hope that our query has been passed to the relevant department.
Ian Aitken has not as yet acknowledged the difference.
In view of the difficulties we find ourselves in, we would appreciate the views held by the following.
Huw Irranca-Davies MP
Peter Black AM
Dr Jo Farrar (CEO)
Louise Fradd (Regeneration Directorate)
Cheryl Green (Leader)
All local councillors
Deborah Rees (Editor, Glamorgan Gazette)
A copy of this email has been posted on our blog, http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
6:26pm
Addendum sent to all previous recipients.
The Snatch
25th July 2007
Dear All
In our opinion the no ‘duplication of trades’ policy is not a sound one. I have spoken with traders from this town and many others, it is a widely accepted fact that healthy competition is a good thing. The 'no duplication of trades policy', is effectively a ‘no healthy competition’ policy, which flies in the face of good business acumen. As we have stated on many occasions, healthy competition threatens only mediocrity, it is good for business, this is a given.
But let us accept for a moment that the ‘no duplication of trades’ policy is a good thing. And was in place when we arrived at Maesteg Market.
It is then, only through satisfying the content of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ which contained the 'no duplication of trades' section, that we were allowed to open The Snatch in the first place. We were allowed into the market because we were offering organic food, which at that time was evidently being recognised by the Property Manager as the being the vastly different product from the fare on offer in the outdoor café. There is surely no doubt surrounding this fact, we would be delighted to invite anyone still unsure to taste the difference.
At this point in time the Property Manager must have been, in allowing us to trade, accepting of the fact that we were in no way duplicating another trade. This is clear.
The following is not clear. At which point did the Property Manager feel we were beginning to duplicate a trade, and was there a meeting held to discuss our infringement of view/policy? We think this view/policy could be more accurately described as a ‘no duplication of a comfortable place to sit and eat’ type view/policy. This fact has not been mentioned up until now, is it also covered in the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’? Please advise
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog. http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
For anyone still unsure about the benefits of eating organic food we 'googled' What is organic food? Google tells us there are 74,100,000 sites on the subject.
Thursday July 26th 10am
We have heard nothing from the council for the past few days. We have received no acknowledgement of any emails having been received by anyone other than the electronic message we continue to receive from the property department which we have copied and pasted below. We must presume that our mail is being read.
Thank you for your email which has been received by property@bridgend.gov.uk.
If your email warrants a substantive reply, please forward a full postal
address, as in some instances, it is the practice of the Department not to
respond by email. Once the postal address has been received, a reply should be
sent within ten working days.
The property Department has our postal address.
12:30pm
We sent the following email to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.
The Snatch
26th July 2007
Dear Sir, please read our blog, http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
We hope it clarifies the situation I outlined to your secretary.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog.
Monday 30th July
No news from the Council.
We await the answers to the questions we put to BCBC under The Freedom of Information Act 2000.
At long last we feel we may be nearing the end of a long and in our opinion egregious and unnecessary dispute.
Last week we informed the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales of our plight, we have been advised that it is now with the assessment team. We also forwarded our blog address to the Law Society, as we have been advised that it might be of interest for trainee barristers to observe proceedings. We also contacted the Society section of The Guardian newspaper, as only last week they printed an article about the arrival of Tesco in a town, and of the likely effect it will have on existing traders, also what it will mean in terms of real regeneration, a subject most dear to us.
We hope we will now be able to stand back from this dispute and let the powers that be do their stuff, and are pleased that we will once more be able to concentrate our efforts on promoting our business and spending time with our children.
We will however continue to broadcast our blog address to anyone we consider will be interested. Today we will inform the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), later in the week we will be looking at the important part art plays in regeneration, and will be contacting celebrities for their views.
We would like to thank you all for your continuing support. Please keep telling your friends to tell their friends.
We stand by our belief in organic produce, real regeneration, freedom of speech, democracy, and the absolute necessity for clear, accessible rules and transparency at all levels of Government.
Many thanks
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
We received a letter from the Ombudsman’s Senior Team Secretary today. They will be letting us know in due course whether the Ombudsman will look into our complaint. We hope so.
We received a reply from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), to inform us that The Department for Communities and Local Government has overall responsibility for this issue. We have emailed this Department.
Tuesday July 31st 2007 5pm
No news from anybody.
Today, in the interest of further education, we sent the following email to Law Faculties at Universities and Law Schools in Aberystwyth, Cambridge, Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh, Exeter, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, Swansea and Sussex. We also sent the email to the The Adam Smith Institute and The Institute for the Study of Civil Society CIVITAS.
The Snatch
31st July 2007
To whom this may concern,
We hope we are nearing the end of a dispute with our Local Authority, Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC). To protect our interests we were advised to take our plight online. If it were not for this wise advice, we believe we may have found ourselves in a position where we would have had to apologise for something that we did not do. We would be heartened to learn that this was not the case.
Could you please pass this on to any law student who might find it of interest? We have never been involved in anything of this nature before, and would prefer not to be in the throes of it now. Should you choose to read our blog, http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com you will learn that the current situation is causing us a great inconvenience, though BCBC is showing no sense of urgency in attempting to resolve our issue?
We had no idea that our simple request to know the rules would lead us to where we find ourselves today, and are keen to see an end to this matter. We opened The Snatch with an aim to do good for the market and for the people of Maesteg. We respect people and nature, hence our choice of business. We certainly did not expect to end up in the midst of what we consider to be a most bizarre situation.
We are assured by many observers and others that know us, that although it is abundantly clear why we feel we have been wronged, and even if the whole world were watching, we would have no chance of getting an apology from Bridgend County Borough Council. Is this true? We do not understand how this would be allowed to be? If you can help us gain a clearer picture of what might be happening to us please feel free to comment.
We had hoped that we would have been able to sort out these issues ourselves but were advised that going via the Ombudsman would be the best route to take. We have done this as we mentioned previously, and are now feeling great relief that our case has reached good hands.
We hope our blog will be of interest to you, if not please be so kind as to pass it on to someone who might be interested. Thank You.
We have not as yet heard from Dr Jo Farrar (CEO), or from Cheryl Green (Leader), we emailed them two weeks ago (see blog 16th July). We do not know if our dispute is still with the Property and Regeneration Departments or is now with Bridgend County Borough Council. Any suggestions?
A copy of this email will appear on our blog.
August 2nd 2007 11:30am
I have just spoken to Paul Carter (Markets Manager) to ask why, in view of the ‘no duplication of trades’ view/policy, he thought that we were allowed to trade in the market in the first place. He said, “Because you’re a take-away, that’s what I took it to be”. We have just passed our first anniversary at The Snatch and this is the first time we have been referred to by anybody as a take-away. Whilst people do take food and coffee away from The Snatch, the majority of our customers who can manage to get onto a stool and stay to eat do just that. Our sincere apologies to old people, blind people, small people, disabled people, nursing mothers, unsteady people, people in wheelchairs and people who like to sit around a table for a chat and a bite to eat. If it’s any consolation, at times we also feel like it's just not fair.
We always have a group of able bodied, reasonably fit people sat around our counter, along with a few precariously perched (BCBC please note.) elderly or disabled but determined others. We have people standing to eat because our limited stools are all too often taken, or even more of a concern to us, walking out of the market for want of somewhere comfortable to sit. Our customers come to The Snatch for the company, and to discuss the town regeneration among other things, as much as they do the food, we know this because they have told us so. There is nothing in our contract to say that we are a take-away, and we have never considered ourselves as such. From day one we have never been a take-away, hence the existence of ceramic, glassware and other eat-in accoutrements that arrived with the first delivery from our supplier and have been in constant use ever since. We note that the outside cafe also does take-away, so are even more puzzled by the Manager's statement.
In the interest of education we have sent our blog address to Harvard and Yale Law Schools, so that interested students may observe proceedings and note similarities and differences between American and British Law.
Friday 3rd August
Have a good weekend.
Wednesday 8th August 9am
Not a peep.
Friday 10th August 4:45pm
Today we recieved the following letter from Fiona Blick for the Property Manager.
Dear Mr Fahey & Ms Kershaw
Stall 1, Maesteg Indoor Market
On 23 July 2007, you E-mailed a long letter to a number of people. The E-mail is addressed to me, but I never actually received it directly from yourself.
In response, I believe that in previous correspondence I have made my position clear. I do not now intend responding to the multitude of questions you have posed. Please either accept the Council’s position as landlord of Maesteg Market or consider re-locating elsewhere.
I do not consider that your requests fall within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act.
Whilst the offer to meet with you remains open, I will not be entering into any further correspondence on this matter.
Yours sincerely
FM Blick
For Property Manager
We replied with the letter below which was sent to the Property Department, Huw Irranca-Davies MP, Peter Black AM, Dr Jo Farrar(CEO), Paul Carter (Markets Manager), Louise Fradd (Regeneration Director), Ian Aitken (Property Manager), Cheryl Green (Leader) Cllr Bob burns (Attached to Property Department), Linda Smith (Access) and Deborah Rees at the Gazette.
The Snatch
10th August 2007
Dear Mrs Blick
Our apologies for not replying directly to your email address, unless we are mistaken we have never had your email address, nor do we know what position you hold within BCBC. Please be so kind as to update us and we will be pleased to send our emails directly to you. It is of course in our interest to ensure you receive our mail as quickly as possible. The email address at the top of your letters reads property@bridgend.gov.uk, if this is no longer valid, please advise. We had presumed that your tardiness in replying was due to your taking leave until 31st July. You will note that although our issue is of great urgency, we had the good grace not to mention your leave earlier in the blog,
In time honoured fashion we purchased Unit 2. We invested three thousand pounds into refrigeration, extra space and trading rights. Before making this considerable investment we discussed this transaction fully with Paul Carter (Markets Manager). As we have stated many times now, he accepted our proposal, otherwise we most certainly would not have parted with any money.
You will note that it is a matter of utmost urgency that we are permitted to trade in unit 2. There is no valid reason that anyone other your Department can see to stop us doing so. You have so far offered three invalid reasons for denying us access. We do not understand why you persist in doing so? Our customers do not understand why you are denying us access, Paul Carter, your own Manager does not understand why you are denying us access. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, could you please clarify your reasons? You have now stopped us trading for months. We have made you aware on numerous occasions that this action is causing us great distress as a family.
You tell us in your letter that you have made yourself clear in previous correspondence? The only thing that is abundantly clear is your wish to avoid answering our questions, they are a multitude only because of your Departments refusal to answer any questions over a twelve-month period. You are still not answering our questions even when we request information under the Freedom of Information Act, in refusing to do so the Property Department appears to be omnipotent.
Of course we accept the Council’s position as landlord of Maesteg Market this fact has never been in question, we are puzzled as to why you are suggesting that we don’t?
We spent a great deal of time researching the area and looking for the perfect location for our unique new venture, and were delighted when Unit 1 became available. This was it, perfect in every way. You will note we spent thousands of pounds developing and stocking The Snatch, our market research has paid off. We were more than happy to invest in our business and are obviously helping to regenerate interest in the Market. Why does the Regeneration Directorate and the Property Department think this wrong? We really do not understand why we are being obstructed and treated differently from other traders. Nor do we understand why you do not have to tell us why we are being treated differently to other traders. This makes for a very insecure workplace indeed.
We note that you do not consider that our ‘requests fall within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act’ 2000. Is this a personal consideration or is it the legal position? You will be aware that a proper procedure must be applied when dealing with requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Act presumes that information will be released. Could you please give us a full explanation as to what exemptions have been applied to permit you to deny us access to the information we requested? It is most important that we have access to this information, for all the reasons mentioned in previous correspondence.
Your offer to meet only arose because of your constantly wishing to close down communication with us, a wish you have expressed yet again in your latest letter. We cannot emphasise enough the need to keep channels of communication open. You must understand that the last time one of your officers (Nicola Watkins) requested a meeting behind closed doors, the result was very ugly indeed, and was of course the catalyst for our shouting out in disgust. We are reluctant to attend a meeting that cannot be recorded. We cannot imagine what you might wish to say to us in private that cannot be said in our blog. We have absolutely nothing to hide, please speak openly and freely.
We look forward to hearing from you. Please email directly to our blog, paperwork is unnecessary in the electronic age and at the end of the day it’s good to be prudent with taxpayer's money. Thank You
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
Fiona Blick has advised us that she is not receiving our emails directly. Would someone be so kind as to pass this one on. Thank You.
A copy of this letter, and of your letter to us has been published on our blog.
Have a good weekend.
Monday 13th August 5pm
No news from the Council.
Today we contacted a number of civil liberties groups. We also contacted Deborah Rees, editor of the Glamorgan Gazette to ask why she wasn't following this story. We will keep you posted as to her reply.
We have been contacted by the Ombudsman to say that he deals only with cases of maladministration by Council employees or complaints against Councillors, and does not touch cases of a legal nature. We were however directed to another office which has proved to be far more helpful.
9:26pm
Today we emailed the following letter to Fiona Blick and all the usual recipients.
Dear Mrs Blick
We fully understand your desire to close down communication with us. Please rest assured the desire is mutual, the only difference being is our need to fully understand the intricacies of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ before we can feel secure in further investing in Maesteg Market.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is an aid to achieving transparency in government, something I’m sure you’ll agree we can’t have too much of. It seems to be made for our case. If you really are going to ignore our requests for information under the FOI Act, could you please communicate with us one more time to tell us so. If we have not heard from you by 5pm tomorrow (Tuesday) we will assume that you have remained true to your word and have closed down correspondence with us. We will then take appropriate action.
To make it easier for you to reply we have included our blog address.
http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
Yours sincerely
Geoff Fahey and Debbie Kershaw
Apology.
This email will appear on our blog. The previous email was lost to a computer crash before it was published
GF
Tuesday August 14th 3:50pm
No reply from Deborah Rees, editor of the Glamorgan Gazette. ( for explanation please read readers comments, especially the snatch response to 'amazed in Cwmfelin' in the comments section at the foot of this blog.)
Today we sent the following email to Fiona Blick and all the usual recipients. We apologise to our readers for the length of this mail. It is an attempt to provide a broader picture and to bring these events to a close.
The Snatch
August 14th 2007
Dear Mrs Blick
Another long letter I’m afraid. I bet I’m at least as fed up writing them as you are with reading them. We hope that this email will offer a broader more detailed view, and will serve to fill in any gaps for our readers. We also hope it will be instrumental in bringing a close to this ridiculous and costly (for us) dispute.
Our problems have arisen because although being told repeatedly, and from the outset by Wayne Sutton, previous Markets Manager, Nicola Watkins, surveyor (at our first traders meeting) and Paul Carter, the current markets manager that the Property Department was the landlord, it was their remit to provide a safe and clean environment and nothing else. This suited us just fine. We have however reported the fact that we have had to clean pigeon faeces from behind Unit 2 and are aware that Vernon the caretaker is regularly cleaning up pigeon faeces off the floor, and has just recently had to clean pigeon ‘muck’ off the bakery counter. As you read this there is a streak of pigeon faeces on one of the stalls that has been there for a month that I am aware of. The amount of pigeon faeces on top of the central stall, which is the favoured roost, must be considerable. There was a pigeon in the market only yesterday. We have reported this health hazard but nothing has been done about it. Many people who use the Market have chest problems, the valley is known for it, our daughter Charlotte has a mild chest complaint. Everybody knows that Pigeon Fanciers Lung (PFL) is a very real disease, yet nothing has been done to remedy this.
They are incidentally offering free blood tests to anyone with a suspect cough. A year ago we reported the three constantly running overflow pipes to Wayne Sutton. We have also made Paul Carter aware of the situation although there was little need as they are a difficult to miss. They have been running 24 hours per day for more than a year that I am aware of. Vernon Cox the caretaker advised me that they’d been running since he took up the job, four years ago. We estimate that possibly millions of gallons have run away over the years for no good reason other than someone in the Property Department did not think it worthy of attention. The gent’s toilet stinks, traders freeze in the winter because the electric doors (a much safer bet in keeping pigeons out) that were promised (email available upon request) have never happened. It seems that if it is within the remit of the Property Department you do nothing, but are ever keen to influence business that you are unqualified to do and by your own admission has nothing to do with you? We have been advised that this negligence and the furtive rules that apply to different traders in different ways is in fact maladministration and have re-engaged the services of the Ombudsman and will be forwarding him a copy of our lease agreement.
The fatuous logic being aired publicly (with our help) by the Property Department in attempting to define the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ is as we’ve said previously in a reply to a blogger like publicly attempting to validate gobbledygook. Furthermore the whole of BCBC is standing behind the view/policy of the Property Manager as if it made sense. We are all witnessing a scenario akin to an amalgamation of the Emperors New Clothes, the Popes prerogative and the Singing, Ringing Tree. A public display of Omnipotence, Infallibility and Unmissable Nonsense at it’s absolute finest.
A summary
June 2006. We entered Maesteg Market and began work on developing The Snatch.
July 2006. We began trading at The Snatch.
A week into our tenancy we were refused stools for our customers because Wayne Sutton said so. In his email (available upon request) of July 31st 2006 he assured us that we would not be permitted stools at the front of our unit. 2 weeks later…Wayne Sutton told me out of the corner of his mouth and with a furtive glance around and about “You can have stools”?
On September 2nd 2006 we received and read our lease agreement and were fully accepting of the content. We returned it to Wayne a couple of weeks later.
At some point, well into our tenancy Wayne asked us for an idea of what equipment we would be using and approximately where it would be sited. I think we may have been a bit slack in providing this information for no reason other than forgetfulness. There was no urgency attached to the request, the details were required so that the annual risk assessment by the Fire Brigade was up to date. Presumably the only reasons these details would be of interest. Please advise if there is another reason we are not aware of?
We persistently made verbal requests to both Wayne Sutton and Paul Carter (Market Managers, past and present) for reasons as to why we could not have tables and chairs for our customers. No satisfactory answer was ever given. Paul Carter the Markets Manager told us that if we were to take over the outdoor café we could then place tables and chairs where we chose. I put it to Paul that this seemed like an incredibly unfair way to run things. He replied with a shrug of the shoulders, a tilt of the head (to the left if my memory serves me correctly) and eyes skyward, he was holding his sheaf of papers to his chest at the time. I do not think we need a body language expert to define his actions, his picture painted more than a thousand words.
I said, “but what if Christine decides to work for another 10 years? His reply was the same.
Paul Carter approached Christine on our behalf to make enquiries as to whether or not she had any intention of giving up her business. My name was not brought in to it because Paul Carter told me that Christine thought I was the “devil’s spawn”, Paul Carter has denied ever saying this, but I will swear on an infinite stack of bibles and on the lives of every child on this land planet that he did, so that’ll be a stalemate then.
The comment was said in a joking sort of way, I do not believe for one moment that Christine had used those words herself, but took it that Paul was advising me that the enquiry was likely to bear more fruit if it came from him. Christine’s reply after a few days of deliberation was “I can’t let my customers down” which I took to mean she was staying.
.
Paul did the shrug thing.
April 07
We ran a petition To measure public support for our proposal, it wasn’t even our proposal at the end of the day, when all chairs and eating space is taken and people are prepared to stand to eat good organic food, the message is deafeningly loud and perfectly clear.
Every trader in the indoor market signed our petition and more than two thirds of traders and market workers overall. We collected the names of approx 500 members of the public on the petition in the first couple of weeks. I delivered these by hand to Mal Reeves at Huw Irranca-Davies’s office. We have not heard if Huw Irranca-Davies has received them yet. We have received not one, but two letters of support from the office of HRH The Prince of Wales. We would like to take this opportunity to thank His Royal Highness and our other supporters. We believe if put to the test we would receive more than 90% of public support for our proposal. We asked you how many names would be required on a petition before the situation would be reviewed? We have never received an answer.
We wished to do nothing but good for Maesteg Market, we are immersed in fine art and organic food for heavens sake, we’re hardly troublemakers? Yet we stand accused by you (Fiona Blick) for the Property Manager, and I quote “over the last couple of weeks your general behaviour within the market and in particular towards Council Officers and other Market Traders has deteriorated to the point of becoming completely unacceptable. This is impacting on the reputation of Maesteg Market and it’s attractiveness as a retailing outlet for shoppers, with potentially damaging impact on other existing stall holders businesses and the ability in the future of encouraging new tenants to occupy stalls within the market.” this statement is evidently complete and utter bunkum.
Our relationship with Paul Carter (Markets Manager) has always been good. The only meetings we have had with other Council Officers was with you, Andrea Evans (Legal) and Nicola Watkins (Surveyor). The Nicola Watkins “can I have a private word’ incident was witnessed by Phil Tew. Your visit to the market was witnessed by Paul Carter, traders and an ex independent councillor, who along with others sat very quietly at The Snatch and listened to our every word. I remember telling you that the people of Maesteg had been referring to the Council as a bunch of nobs and much worse, please believe me their actual comments were much, much worse. (Unprintable here, but available upon request). At this point Andrea Evans interjected with “Under the terms of your lease”…. I said, “we’ve done nothing wrong under the terms of our lease, why don’t you take us to court” she replied, “Do you want us to?” I said of course we do, this situation is outrageous.” You all left. The offer still stands. If you remember this incident any differently to this please advise us. You will no doubt remember the witnesses who were present at the time, and as we’ve mentioned previously you will undoubtedly have kept the CCTV evidence of the incident to support your claim. So which Council Officers or traders are we supposed to have behaved badly towards? And from whom do you continue to receive complaints against us? Was it Nicola Watkins who made her outrageous accusation behind closed doors? (and which Paul Carter denounced) Or was it you, or Andrea Evans who appeared to object to hearing public opinion, and who told us when we pointed out that we were being stopped from trading on a technicality, that it was all about technicalities. For the record we thought this was said with an air of smugness, how else could it have been said when we had made it perfectly clear that it was more accurately about our livelihoods. What has happened to us is being viewed by all as an incredibly naïve attempt at a smear campaign, fortunately for us, the 'incidents' on which it is based have been witnessed at every turn of the road never to have happened. At present it appears that BCBC officers can say what they want about anybody with absolute immunity. This is a very scary scenario indeed.
In order to offer the traders an opportunity to voice their opinion, (Nicola Watkins told me after the fact that I should not have approached traders to ask their opinions! Why not it’s a free country?) I had to ask them to read our proposal. When I asked Christine in the outdoor café if she would object to me having tables for my customers, she replied in front of Vernon Cox your caretaker, “You know I do you’ve been speaking to Paul.” (How did she know I’d been speaking to Paul? I had assumed that my conversation with Paul had been confidential.) I then said, “But Christine, it would be good for us all”. She put the flat of her right hand towards my face, ‘Catherine Tate style,’ and said, I’m not interested. The event was witnessed in full, and was the reason for Nicola Watkins accusing me of harassment for the first time. The second incident that involved Gill the hairdresser is legend (Details available upon request). This led to the second “can I have a private word” which resulted in the second harassment allegation and my demanding it in writing, so that I could deal with it, and also in us deciding that we would need to protect ourselves against this underhand and unprofessional approach. It was time to tell the public what was happening to us. We shouted out and are continuing to do so. Can you begin to imagine the stupidity of someone who would be causing all of this fuss if there were absolutely anything to hide? We feel we are being treated in an extremely shabby fashion, and are actively spreading the word far and wide in the hope that it isn’t allowed to happen again.
Receiving no sensible response to our queries in twelve months was the catalyst for resorting to a petition. The punishment we continue to receive for doing precisely nothing, other than speaking to other traders about their opinion, is frankly beyond our comprehension.
In Louise Fradd’s (Regeneration Directorate) letter of 30th May we were afforded the briefest of glimpse of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’. due to the many anomalies in her letter we presumed that this was the ‘maiden outing’ of the confusing policy/view, no other trader or member of the public could make head nor tail of it. We await clarification to this day.
After a recent regeneration? meeting in the Council chamber I spoke with Cllr Bill May. He told me in front of an independent witness that Louise Fradd regretted being drawn into this fiasco, and seriously regretted having put here name to the letter we received from her office. I must comment that this would make sense, because prior to the meeting we were receiving emails from Louise Fradd that had a friendly tone. The post internal meeting letter we received instantly reduced my partner Debbie to tears, and made us all the more determined to out the truth. After the initial shock at the tone and highly contentious content of the letter, we had many people read it. It was considered nonsense by all and sundry and is still being passed around. Bill May also told me that Louise Fradd had made derogatory remarks about officers of the Property Department (When I asked which ones in particular? he replied, “All of them.”) the comments were along the lines of those made by the general public. (Precise quotation available upon request.) If this is true Louise Fradd, then it might be a good time to put your hand up. If I do not hear anything from you, I will return to Cllr. May for further clarification. In offering me this information I took it that Cllr. May was supportive of our cause and so asked, in view of the deafening silence emanating from all Councillors, how we could find out which Councillors were supporting us and who was standing against us? He said “that would be a very difficult thing to do.” Openness, courage of ones convictions, transparency, democratic process. Where’d it go?
It is the view of the vast majority that to stand against a sensible proposal such as ours is regressive and highly questionable behaviour. We have been unable to determine where Dr Jo Farrar (CEO) or Cheryl Green (Leader) stand on this most important matter, if they are not leading by example we can expect little more of their underlings.
So here we find ourselves today. Our livelihoods are under threat from a seemingly untouchable force. We stand accused of all manner of misdemeanours. My name has been blacked in the Glamorgan Gazette.
We are being made to look foolish on a daily basis as we struggle in restricted space to cope with the extra business we have encouraged into the market with our fine organic food and coffee.
It is ‘criminal’ to watch our regular customers come to The Snatch for a snack and coffee to turn away because there is nowhere for them to sit, to then come back later to find the same scene, and to finally walk out of the Market, clearly disappointed, and no doubt wondering if it will be worth even looking in the next time. We find ourselves in the ludicrous position of having our business damaged by our own popularity and the interference of Council officers unqualified to do so.
We have a runaway success on our hands, and it is becoming abundantly clear that somebody, somewhere doesn’t like it. We are telling friends, family, neighbours, colleagues and anyone else we can about our problems, no doubt you are doing the same. We would be interested to know what your neighbours, family and friends think about your actions? Our guess is, you're keeping it quiet.
Yours sincerely
Geoff Fahey and Debbie Kershaw
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog.
6:04pm
We sent the following email to the usual recipients, Huw Irranca-Davies MP, Peter Black AM, Dr Jo Farrar (CEO), Paul Carter (Markets Manager), Louise Fradd (Regeneration Director), Ian Aitken (Property Manager), Cheryl Green (Leader) Cllr Bob burns (Attached to Property Department), Linda Smith (Access) and Deborah Rees at the Gazette.
Dear Mrs Blick
We have been advised that we must ask you to internally review your decision not to disclose information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Yours sincerely
Geoff Fahey and Debbie Kershaw
Wednesday 15th August 9:45am
A lot of problems in Maesteg Market seem to be ignored. We are trying to establish what the Maesteg Market Traders are getting for their rent. Today we sent this letter to Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
The Snatch
15th August 2007
Hi Paul
Today we learned that The Property Department pay the Maintenance Department £56 to change a light bulb in Maesteg Market? We also learned that Maesteg Market traders pay the Property Department at BCBC approximately £75,000 per annum in rent.
This morning, with a customer timing the procedure, we measured one of the constantly running overflows in the market. It was leaking at a rate of 1 litre in 1minute and 45 seconds. We multiplied this by three for the number of overflows and divided the figure by 24 hours, this equates to 102.86 litres per hour or 2,468.57 litres per day over a year this equates to 901, 028.57 litres. In the past four years 3,604.114.29 litres of water have leaked away, in ten years it amounts to 9,010,285.71 wasted litres. These leaking overflows cannot be missed. We are not plumbers, but have never seen this set up before. Managers over the years will have queried this unusual set up, traders will have no doubt reported it as we did a year ago, so we must assume that everybody in the Property Department has been made aware of this waste, if waste it is? We would like the Property Department to assure us that it is not in fact a waste, but a proper plumbing configuration. We are also curious to know, that if it is in fact a fault, whether or not the loss is being reflected in the traders rents and if not, just who has been paying for it?
Regards
Geoff
A copy of this email will be published on our blog.
We noted that if the leaking water was metered the yearly cost would amount to £10689.48 Phew!
We received this prompt reply from Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
Geoff
As you are aware I have been dealing with the water board only last week we were looking down meter covers and identifying leaks. So far this year I have made significant savings in our water charges. All the main leaks outside have now been fixed (I am informed) I am hoping that the leaks in the building will be addressed next week.
Paul
9pm
We replied with the following email.
Hi Paul, Thanks for your prompt reply I was beginning to think people weren't receiving our emails. I was in no way aware that you had been dealing with the water board, how could I have been, we haven't seen you to speak to for weeks.
I detect a change in your tone, please do not take our email as a criticism of your ability to manage, we have always got on very well, and realise that you are only working to orders from above. Please accept that we feel as if we have been treated in an extremely shabby fashion, in no way have we associated you with this type of behaviour. I first reported the leak to Wayne Sutton a year ago and was just drawing attention to Property Department priorities. Well done on the significant savings, how much do they amount to? Good to hear we're moving along on the leaks business. What an amazing coincidence, it's been leaking for more than a decade now in all probability and we both thought about getting it fixed in the same week. Wow!
Thanks for dropping the market promotional stuff in, we’re a bit busy to distribute it yet though.
Kind regards
Geoff
ps. What about the pigeon poo?
pps. I think you may have left your copy of 'How to win friends and Influence people' around our house, we found it under the sofa next to your slippers....just a little joke.... like the old days eh?
Geoff xx
Thursday 16th August 5:22am
We sent this email to Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
Hi Paul
As we are presently looking at where our rent goes, and in view of the Property Departments wish to keep Fire risk details up to the minute, you’ll probably be interested in this… I came across an email to Wayne Sutton as I’ve been looking at all mail over the last year. There is one in particular that touched on the amount of debris that is stacked on top of the stalls. I pointed out that it was clearly visible, as you looked in from the front entrance of the Market it is unsightly and what is more a fire risk. Over the decades it has also undoubtedly been liberally splattered with pigeon poo. Apart from being a health hazard it contradicts the image portrayed by the promotional flyer you dropped in at The Snatch. We think potential visitors to Maesteg Market might think they’ve arrived at the wrong place, and will head straight off to the 'attractive little town of Bridgend' as it was described in the flyer. It is our guess that this is also a problem that was just about to be addressed.
We are keen to know what traders get for their rent, and were staggered to hear that the Property Department spends £56 (I’d do it all day for a tenner) to change a light bulb, is this true? In view of this we wondered what it costs the Property Department to clear the drains that regularly back-up because we are told they are collapsing. This situation can only get worse and apart from being extremely unpleasant and inconvenient for traders and customers (overflowing drains etc etc). When it happens it is surely a massive drain (pardon the pun) on resources to keep flushing it through instead of addressing the real issue, this action in itself I would imagine would further erode the crumbling drains? We are keen to know the ongoing cost of constant repairs over the years as opposed to facing the inevitable and getting the job done. The situation was likened by one of our customers to treating a haemophiliac with band-aids. We think this a potential health hazard if it is not already. What are the plans for the drains?
Kind regards
Geoff
Ps In reading over your previous emails we noticed a marked difference compared to the tone of the most recent one. You will be aware that we have told the truth and nothing but the truth always. At what point did I upset you? If upset you I have. If it was the devil’s spawn thing, it is of no consequence, I took it for what it was, a figure of speech to describe the frosty reception I might expect to receive from Christine were I to approach her directly. You were right.
Please speak open and freely in our forum. We have absolutely nothing to hide.
Gxx
A copy of this email will be published on our blog.
11:30am
The Snatch
16th August 2007
We have not received a reply from Fiona Blick. We do not know if she is receiving our emails, the last time she took leave (about 24th July) she advised us when she got back that she had not been receiving them. We requested her personal email address, as it is of utmost importance to us that we receive her prompt reply, but it has not been forthcoming. It is inconceivable to think that she would have taken leave yet again without appointing a deputy. What sort of person could sit on a beach or enjoy any holiday with the full knowledge that they were seriously affecting the quality of life of another family for absolutely no good reason?
There is an eerie silence. A thought has just occurred to us. Maybe all of BCBC take leave at the same time, in which case we apologise to our readers if the issue is beginning to sound a bit one sided. We would also like to extend our apologies to all recipients of our emails, if you are just returning back from leave we must have taken up a lot of your inbox. Sorry.
We do not know who is reading our mail.
Today we sent the following email to Fiona Blick and all of the usual recipients.
Dear Mrs Blick, are you now receiving our emails? For that matter, are any recipients receiving our emails? Please advise. A simple ‘Y’ will suffice.
Thank You.
Would a recipient of this email at BCBC please ensure that Fiona Blick receives it and kindly advise us that this has been done. Thank You.
12:15pm We have received a reply from Peter Black AM, to say he is receiving our emails. We have asked him where he stands on this matter?
Saturday 5th September 11:04am
Today we sent the following email to all of the usual recipients.
To whom it may concern:
The kids have gone back to school. It is as quiet as the grave. The ball lies motionless in BCBC’s court, yet nobody moves to pick it up, nobody is even acknowledging its existence, it may as well be a hot potato. It is common knowledge that testudinal activity is to be expected from BCBC, the exception being when money is due to them, but we detect no sense of urgency whatsoever from Angel Street,….. nothing. One old wag said “we wouldn’t know for some time if they’d all emigrated, but when the bulbs in the traffic lights failed and traffic flowed freely through Maesteg, it would become obvious that there was something positive afoot.
And the crowd looks on, hushed… watching……. waiting…,…. but nobody moves, not a twitch.
In my day in school, children discriminated against for any reason, e.g race, colour, Creed, shape, football team preference, sexual preference etc., etc. ad infinitum, would often be targeted for group punishment. The taunt of the day could be absolutely anything that took the fancy of the larger group e.g. ‘Nah nah nah nah nah we’re from Bridg-e-end, and yo-o-our not’ or ‘you’re to-oo fa-at ‘or ‘we do -on’t like you’ or ‘your face doesn’t fi-it’ or ‘we’re playing a ga-ame and you don’t know the ru-ules and we’re not going to tell you, so you lose every ti-ime, you ca-an’t wi-in so nah nah nah nah nah’, or ‘we’ve got a pla-an, that we haven’t told you about, so the-ere, and we’re much bigger than you-u and we can shout louder than yo-ou, because there are more of u-us, so we-ee-re sa-afe’. Sorry, I was just reminiscing there for a moment. Playground behaviour is where, however well monitored, our children learn that a larger organised group can and will make life a misery for a minority group; the playground is such a cruel place. Thank goodness the vast majority of adults leave infantile behaviour to the children in the knowledge that all but the least perceptive will grow out of it.
Back to the present. So why are BCBC playing the silence card? We do not know what to make of it. This silence is literally anybody’s guess. We are however comforted by the fact that in reporting BCBC’s refusal to answer our questions posed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and in our sending a copy of our tenancy agreement to the Ombudsman presumably that he may check for any reference to the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ that is having such a devastating effect on our business, everything is now in place to ensure that we will receive the long awaited answers to our very straightforward questions… please continue to watch this space.
To recap. As chairman of Maesteg Market Traders I have been requesting information vital to the security of all traders for twelve months. I have three times requested this information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the first two instances we (My partner and I) were refused because our questions were referred to as queries, which did not require answers. Our third request, in which, under advice from the office of the Commissioner for Information, we asked which exemptions were applied to validate the Property Department of Bridgend County Borough Council’s refusal to supply the information requested, this has been met with a wall of silence from Dr Jo Farrar (CEO) and Cheryl Green (leader of the Council) down. We have asked that the decision to refuse information be internally reviewed, we have heard nothing.
The method and rules being applied to hold back our business and to punish us financially on a daily basis were not made clear at the outset and were certainly not mentioned in our Lease Agreement. It has frequently been made very clear to us, and to every other trader in Maesteg and Bridgend markets that the Property Department’s only remit is to provide a safe and clean environment for traders to work in. This is evidently not the case. Not only are the Property Department failing to provide a clean, safe environment, but also they have persistently blocked the natural expansion of our business for no valid reason whatsoever. The reasons given for denying us expansion to date are widely considered to be risible, with physical evidence to prove the Property Departments objections as nonsense. We believe that in order to validate Louise Fradd’s (Regeneration Director?) suggestion that the rule governing traders is an ‘unwritten policy not set in stone’ there must have been a meeting to decide that the policy was to be an ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ with safeguards in place to prevent traders falling foul of the nepotism and discrimination which many believe to be rife. Our main concern, as we have stated many times, is that the ‘unwritten policy not set in stone’ does not apply to all traders in the same way, with some traders enjoying the lucrative benefits of ‘same trader’ duplication’ which we have been denied, and ‘ancillary’ duplication which we are also denied. We have asked repeatedly how we may become eligible to enjoy these benefits but have never received an answer, the duplication club remains a very exclusive club. More baffling still, the fact that we were permitted to enter Maesteg market to trade in the first place precisely because we were not duplicating a trade. In view of the fact that we are proposing the only organic arts café for miles around, and that the food and original art we were proposing to offer could not have been found anywhere else in the world. We are concerned and in need of an explanation as to precisely when it was considered that we had begun to duplicate a trade, and who it was that considered that this was the case?
We are fearful that the massive defence being put up by the Property Department to prevent us from understanding the rules is precisely because there are no rules other than those made on an ad hoc basis by the Property manager or his officers, with no records being kept of such decisions, or why they were made. If this is the case it is a very worrying development indeed, and all traders must be made aware of the precarious nature of their investments and of the potentially devastating whims and power of the Property Manager.
As far as we have been able to establish there is no one in the Property Department who holds any qualification relating to small businesses, we feel this is clearly reflected in the highly questionable decisions emanating from that department.
Below is an example of our current restricted menu, the menu we would have liked to have offered over the past few months, and the menu on offer in the outdoor café. We do not expect anyone to take our word for the content of the menus, the proof of the pudding is as they say, in the eating.
Current restricted menu
Jacket potatoes. Served with chilli con carne, bolognaise and various other freshly made fillings.
Various salads. Served with new potatoes and various dressings. (Stopped due to popularity and lack of space to deal with demand)
Toast. A choice of white, wholemeal or granary served plain with welsh organic butter or various toppings.
Freshly made sandwiches. White, wholemeal or granary with various fillings.
Home made cake. Madeira, Coffee and walnut, Chocolate and various other cakes, made in the market with wholly organic ingredients.
Home made soups. Vary daily and include carrot and coriander, spinach and broccoli, leek and potato, vegetable, tomato, parsnip and apple etc etc
Beverages. Segafredo coffee, espresso, cappuccino, etc, etc.
Organic free trade tea.
Organic juices
Everything we serve is organic when available and is the finest on offer when it is not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A sample of the menu we had hoped to offer this summer before the Property Department saw fit to deny us access to unit 2. In denying us access the Property Department continues to cost us dearly on a daily basis.
All of the current restricted menu plus:
Roast salmon and prawn salad. Served on a bed of seasonal salad dressed with vinaigrette.
Greek meze salad. Houmous, olives, anchovies, tomatoes and stuffed vine leaves served with a dressed salad garnish
Various tapas. Including Crayfish tails with feta and olives,
chorizo and pork skewers, char grilled aubergine etc etc.
Cous cous. Made with fragrant spices and various accompaniments.
Slow cooked Mediterranean beef. Local beef cooked in Provencal sauce served with salad and a baguette.
Moroccan lamb tagine. Cooked with aubergine, apricots and fragrant spices served with wild rice and seasonal salad.
Chilli con carne. Made with locally reared Welsh beef and served with long grain rice sour cream, fresh coriander and nachos.
Welsh Cawl. Made using locally reared organic lamb, served with fresh local organic vegetables and mashed potatoes with chives and cream.
Homemade soups As above
Organic juices.
Organic fruit smoothies.
Various sweet dishes.
Ice Cream.
Daily vegetarian option.
Beverages. Segafredo coffee, espresso, cappuccino, etc, etc.
Clipper organic free trade tea.
All of the above, and much more. We had also intended to cater for parties and will try to accommodate any reasonable request. The menu will change from day to day.
Everything we serve is organic when available, and is the finest on offer when it is not.
Outdoor café.
Fried breakfast.
Toast or chips. Sometimes freshly cooked.
Beverages. Instant coffee or tea.
Nothing served in the outdoor cafe is organic.
There is undoubtedly room for this type of café. However, for the Property Manager to insist on likening the fare on offer in the outdoor café with the freshly made organic food we are serving in The Snatch is ill informed at best.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also puzzled as to how the Property Manager, someone who is known to have visited Maesteg market only once in close on a decade, is insistent that we are duplicating trades, when duplication of trades is not permissible, yet physical evidence to the contrary abounds in both Maesteg and Bridgend markets. We are also concerned at the lengths officers in the Property Department are prepared to go to in order to prevent us from having access to, and therefore gaining an understanding of the rules that have a direct bearing on the livelihoods of all market traders? We are keen to know how the trader in the outdoor café has been able to prevent any trader opening another café, however diverse, in Maesteg market for twenty-three years?
Dr Jo Farrar (CEO), and Cheryl Green (Leader of the Council) have both been kept fully aware of the situation, we presume their silence means they are either taking an extended holiday, are avoiding any involvement, but don’t like to say so, or are currently upholding the view of the Property Manager, but don’t like to say so. Surely we should not have to guess where these people stand on this matter?
We have contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and are acting on their advice. We will now make an official complaint against BCBC for withholding information requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The ICO advised us that they have a backlog of two to three months before our case will be looked at. As we have already waited a year for satisfactory answers, we will take this unavoidable hiatus in our stride. We are aware that representatives from a number of legal establishments and the media are watching this blog because they have told us as much. We will use this lull in proceedings to broadcast our blog address far and wide, so that as many people as possible are party to the evasive tactics currently being employed by BCBC.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
A copy of this email has been published on our blog.
Thursday 13th September
Today we were told we would be allowed to trade in Unit 2. Thank you for your continuing support, we will keep you updated.
This blog is now closed. We have moved to The Goatbuster's Forum
posted by geoff at 10:42 on 01-Jul-2007
Blogger Joanne said...
I have been following this story in the gazette with great interest as I find this whole debate absolutely unbelievable.... I worked on Maesteg Market as a teenager, when the market was bustling and the businesses running from there were flourishing. This was prior to the new market stalls being built and the bus station being upgraded. After the rebuild, businesses left the market in droves, and what was once perceived as an excellent place to browse and shop, turned into a ghost town. Maesteg's businesses over the years took a major nose dive after the redevelopement, people went out of town, in search of a bargain. On a Friday and Saturday, people used to pack into the indoor and outdoor market, but nothing much seems to have survived... However,
In the last couple of years, there seems to be more of an interest in Maesteg again and there are far less shops empty than there were, and people are prepared to invest in new business ventures here again. Should this not be seen as a massive advantage to the town?? With a new Tesco store about to embark on us, people are far less likely to spend precious time going to Bridgend, Port Talbot, Swansea and Cardiff for their weekly shop, so shouldn't we aim at keeping them within the confines of our own town centre and encourage them to spend their hard earned cash locally? This Cafe is offering organic produce, I've not seen another offer of the same product elsewhere in Maesteg, so can't see how this can be called dupplication of business.... This deserves to be given the chance to grow, yet it seems to me that Bridgend County Borough Council is against the concept of providing options and alternatives to the people of Maesteg, unless they are prepared to go to Bridgend, or McArthur Glen for some variation in their purchases.. Why are the council wasting money on redeveloping our Town Centre if they don't want us to use it. Facilities in Maesteg are far less available than in Bridgend, and someone has used a bit of foresight and initiative to encourage not just the people of Maaesteg, to use our town, but also to encourage people from further afield to consider Maesteg as a viable shopping centre again, so why are they creating invisible rules and obstacles to restrain an attempt to provide a refreshment area within the Market? I don't understand BCBC's reasoning for their objection to some tables and chairs? When we purchase a drink or something to eat, should we not be permitted to sit comfortably to consume it? If not, why not? Would the council prefer we walk the street and encourage even more litter to mar the town?
I will continue to follow this story, and I encourage everyone to support this new little cafe, in it's business and it's plight to provide us with a seating area to enjoy it's products. I shall revisit the sight soon to see how plans develop, and support this business.... Maybe someone from the Trading Office should show some interest in this cause too, after all, isn't this what the people of Maesteg want in their town? Don't we have any say?? I've not complained or heard of anyone complaining about there being a seating area planned for this cafe, and would be inetersted to know if anyone actually does have a problem with it, apart from "The Council"???
Joanne, Curious and Concerned Maesteg Resident
03 July 2007 12:26
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
well done geoff and debbie, keep up the good work. it's about time the powers that be were taken to task, they have got away with things far too often. they are spending a mint trying to get "the peoples" opinion and then totally ignoring it. MAESTEG HAS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR AN ORGANIC CAFE AND ARTS CENTRE. move over and lets get on with it
04 July 2007 14:53
Delete
Blogger trudepocock said...
Hi Geoff and Debs,
Having known the two of you for many years I am finding it hard to fathom the situation you are in. That one man can stand in the way of progress and what ultimately, you have proved is wanted and desired within your area is staggering. What it amounts to is narrowmindedness and cowardice ultimately, you are providing a service that it is proven the local community want. They obviously do not want the mass produced, sugar and E number laden products and are choosing with their feet and wallets, hence the reason for the expansion. And what expansion are we talking about? The providing of table and chairs! I cannot believe it.
Also, it is incredulous that anyone can describe Geoff in such a way, I have always regarded you as a king, gentle, caring and sensitive soul, who ultimately wants to be happy and to do the right thing.
I wish you both all the best in your plight for justice and expansion.
Trude
05 July 2007 09:59
Delete
Anonymous Geoff said...
Hi Trude, I presume you meant to type 'kind' otherwise it's a capital K please. Good to hear you.
Geoff
05 July 2007 12:36
Delete
Anonymous Matt Black said...
My dear deluded friend, you appear to be under the impression that we are living in a democracy. This is evidently not the case. The bitter pill you refer to is staple diet in an authoritarian society. I personally find it a lot easier to take with copious and regular amounts of alcohol, nothing however will get rid of the disgusting taste in your mouth. If you're now finished with the rose tinted specs, please pass them on to someone who has not yet rubbed up against the authority.
Good luck
07 July 2007 01:17
Delete
Anonymous Nina Stevens said...
I was wondering who is the Property Manager? And does he/she use Maesteg market? I
understand that he/she is suggesting that organic food is the same as
non-organic food, and is citing duplication as the reason for refusal. This
surely, cannot be true? Its absolutely absurd that we, the members of the public are unable to take a seat at a table whilst consuming the fantastic food and drinks that are served at the Snatch. Come on the powers that be, please just see how ridiculous you are being.
10 July 2007 12:33
Delete
Blogger Neo said...
I am afraid that Matt is right.
The only hope left for the world is the spread of local markets and organic food, much to the chagrin of those that might prefer to back superstores. What you are getting is the 'I have power' run-around.
You have two choices - challenge the extent of power, enlist the help of a higher power.
Reason and consumer popularity are on your side - this means you can appeal to the local commercial TV current affairs show or the courts, or both.
You will garner greater public support if you make your objections publically obvious. In Tassie, when trying to stop the flooding of a wild river valley by the Hydro-electric Commission (The Franklin River campain of the 1980's), certain activists flooded the HEC building in Hobart.
Perhaps a better scale of protest might be putting table and chairs outside the office of the officer responsible and serving fare until being removed by the doorman/constabulary - having invited the press, of course. If you wish to fire up your creative spark then downloading back episodes of "The Chaser's War on Everything" from ABC TV (Aust) might be helpful.
Another alternative is to just do what you want to do anyway and let them take you to court. That way you can trade, gather a support base and the publicity - if you can find free legal advice that would be most helpful, of course.
General philosophical assertions: Don't try to fight the unreasonable with reason. Lots of emotion, power posturing and propaganda. You have reason on your side, but don't resort to it until needed. Hmm.. public ridicule might work though...
regards
Neo Conned
11 July 2007 21:36
Delete
Anonymous Elvis Presley--Memphis Tennesee said...
I've been following this blog for the past ten days, the silence emanating from Angel St. is deafening, has anybody checked to see if there's anyone still there. The method of democracy being employed appears to have been honed in China.
12 July 2007 02:50
Delete
Anonymous Margaret said...
Why on earth has the Gazette stopped following this story, just as things seem to be getting uncomfortable for the council?
Puzzled of Maesteg
12 July 2007 07:59
Delete
Anonymous Andrea said...
What no duplication? BCBC wake up to reality. , there is duplication everywhere in Maesteg market and in Bridgend. The way Debbie and Geoff at the Snatch are being bullied is nothing short of disgraceful.
12 July 2007 09:25
Delete
Anonymous civilised man said...
Ha ha ha ha hee hee hee ho ho ho hoo hah hee hee ho ho ha ha ha ha ha ha!
The Property Department at BCBC seem to be oblivious to the negative impact this unbelievable public display of regressive thinking will be having upon them.
12 July 2007 09:38
Delete
Anonymous Andrea said...
I use the Snatch most mornings, and have been watching this blog from day one. Reading Margarets comment, I was also curious why the Gazette has backed off. Since the last article they printed, there has been a second letter from Buckingham Palace, an article posted in the Tasmanian Times by the editor of that site who must have thought it was a worthwhile story, and a letter sent to Gordon Brown at Downing Street. The property manager has been made aware of the blog, and still stony silence from Angel St. Do the Gazette know about this blog?
A friend of mine said the Gazette closing down on the story is probably because Mr Fahey and Ms Kershaw seem to have a strong case, and they printed stuff about Mr Fahey which by all accounts is untrue. I think this is called libel.
Oh what a tangled web this is turning out to be.
13 July 2007 03:55
Delete
Anonymous pol pot said...
This council seems to be doing everything right. You bloggers need to get out more often.
BCBC, Keep up the good work, I'm proud of you.
13 July 2007 04:36
Delete
Anonymous Rachel from Porthcawl said...
I have just been told about this blog. If all I read here is true, and speaking to others who use the market leaves me with little doubt, then the Property Department have a large and very public step down to make. Losing face publicly is something they will want to avoid at all costs. It will be interesting to see what methods they might employ to wriggle their way out of facing the music. I will follow this blog intently.
An interested observer.
15 July 2007 09:53
Delete
Anonymous Debbie Kershaw said...
Every morning when I come to work at The Snatch, the first thing I notice is the shambles of Unit 2 and the missed opportunities of the past 4 months to improve our business and the general ambience of the market.
The daily frustration of juggling fresh organic produce in a small fridge to produce wholesome organic food for our customers, whilst two enormous fridges that I own but cannot use, stand idle only a few metres away, is beginning to take it’s toll. The success of our business means that without the use of unit 2, we cannot expand and offer our customers what they are telling us they want. We have invested a lot of time and money in our business and we have a genuine desire to see the market thriving again. Since the fruit and vegetable stall opened inside the market last week the increase in the number of people walking through the market has been sizeable. The bakers and the meat stall are thriving. Food is the key to any market. People will always want food, the greater the choice the better.
We want the use of Unit 2 and can see no reason why we are being denied access. The lethargy surrounding the running of the market as a whole is tangible. There is a poster on the wall of Unit 2 that we discovered when we started to clean up the unit ready for refurbishment, before we were stopped in our tracks by BCBC. This poster is dated 1919 and is a list of tolls relating to the market. We advised the management of its existence, but nobody has even been to see it, let alone do anything about preserving it.
Nothing is being made of the market. We believe that the market could be one of the keys to the regeneration of Maesteg.
When we took on The Snatch we had no idea that we would, or even could, get into such a ridiculous situation as we are in now. All we want to do is provide good food, unusual and interesting art and artefacts and a cheerful, friendly place where people can meet or wait for the bus.
Please, let’s just get on with it.
Debbie Kershaw
15 July 2007 14:14
Delete
Anonymous Geoff Fahey said...
This whole issue has erupted, and continues to do so because we have asked to see market policy. Love them or hate them, in our opinion rules are a necessary part of life. This is a crystal clear case of the problems that are bound to occur when there are no clear, accessible rules in place.
Example 1: when we first asked for stools around the Snatch, the previous manager told us that ‘this was not going to happen’. On asking why, he told us ‘because I said so’. When I said that this would never do, he told us ‘that is how it is going to be’. We are still in possession of emails from that time, which make it clear that market policy was largely dependent on which way the wind was blowing on the day. Two weeks later he told me out of the corner of his mouth that I could put a few stools out. It appeared to us then as now that the market is a rudderless ship being run on unqualified and ill-informed personal whim.
We also realise that the urgency is only with us, presumably everyone in the Property Department is still getting paid, if there is anything being done about our plight then we have yet to be advised of it.
We appeal to the Property Manager to sort this issue out so that we may get on with our lives.
15 July 2007 21:36
Delete
Anonymous Mr Lloyd--maesteg said...
It is said that a society can be judged by the way it treats the vulnerable within that society. I have lived and worked under councils in Basildon, Ealing, Swansea, Newport and Cardiff and now Bridgend. My clients are mainly elderly. I have never heard so many complaints about a Council as I have this one.
Enough said
16 July 2007 04:54
Delete
Anonymous sarah said...
It's gone ever so quiet in Angel St.
Watching and waiting in Maesteg
16 July 2007 11:36
Delete
Anonymous laura.john3@btopenworld.com said...
i remember when there were bus trips run to maesteg market from surrounding town, probably even bridgend. we had a market to be proud of. the new market,bus station and those who run it seems to have put an end to that. maesteg certainly hasn't been "IMPROVED" why bother doing anything, new roads, tescos, refurbished shops etc. these things could be great but for once in your lives listen to the public after all these are the people who will be using it and we say we love the SNATCH and would love to see it expand, just a thought has anyone thought of writing to jamie oliver for some support.
well BCBC i am about to give you some information which will make you realize who you are up against, mr geoff fahey is a nephew to mr jim o'brien who i think you realize by now at 93years old still does not give up!!!!!
17 July 2007 13:02
Delete
Anonymous Rob Lewis said...
Hi Geoff, Rob Lewis here,I too remember when I lived in Aberavon as a child coming up to Maesteg with my mother to meet my Grandmother every friday.I vividly remember how busy and bustling the town used to be in those days,and indeed up to the "regeneration" of the market from the old format to the current one.I'm also afraid that you may be coming up against something else Maesteg used to be famous for,nepotism.Is it just a case of your's and Debbie's faces not fitting,or have you just really rubbed someone up the wrong way? Either way I offer you ny wholehearted support,and hope that common sense makes a sudden and unexpected appearance at Angel street in the near future. Just a suggestion,have you contacted Michael Moore's website,he likes a good scrap too,even if he is american! Good luck to you,see you in the King Alf' on a tuesday soon Geoff.Cheers,Rob.
20 July 2007 16:06
Delete
Blogger The Snatch said...
Hiya Rob,
Thanks for your comment. As I know you, and so as not to divert away from the main thrust of the blog, I’ll take this opportunity to address a side issue, a little online conversation between friends if you like.
I saw a programme the other night with Gryff Rhys-Jones in Cardiff, he was on with someone whose name I missed, but who spoke with authority. He was explaining that a city/town has to have an identity or a ‘Brand’ as he called it, to survive in our increasingly homogeneous society where one town has pretty much the same shops and attractions as the next. In other words, there is little point spending millions on a regeneration project as in Maesteg when the nearest town, as in Bridgend has the same, if not better, facilities. We do not understand why Louise Fradd, (Regeneration Director) is so opposed to our unique organic arts cafe proposal when there's nothing like it for miles around. Even more confusing, I met with Helen Jeffries, the regeneration officer before Ellie Fry (current Physical Regeneration officer), it must be a couple of years ago now, and I gave her my portfolio of work, which generally draws favourable comments. I offered to put a piece of sculpture into the town, to give Maesteg something different from other towns. I have undertaken large works in Montpellier S.W France, which was covered by the Local Newspaper and televised, also two pieces in Andalucia, Southern Spain, I am familiar with undertaking large works. I thought the regeneration project in Maesteg was the perfect opportunity to give Maesteg something unique, the beginnings of a brand if you please.
My suggestion was to build a dragon in the town with a sub frame of stainless steel, to represent the steel industry in Port Talbot, where many Maesteg people worked over the years, and where Len Radford, a Maesteg man, gave his life in November 2001. It would have been covered in copper rings to represent the industry in Swansea, which at one time produced over 85% of the world’s copper. It was to be sat on a bed of coal to represent the miners of Maesteg, men who worked in appalling conditions and far too often gave the ultimate sacrifice, who with their own donations built among other things Maesteg hospital, where I was born. I am reminded of this every time an ambulance screams past our house on the way to or from the Princess of Wales Hospital, nine life-threatening miles away in Bridgend? I thought the coal base would be a visible reminder of our heritage, The mines are being allowed to grow over with not as much as a plaque to acknowledge their existence or their influence in the shaping of the town and people of Maesteg. Many people have said the miners would be spinning in their graves if they could see what became of their sweat and blood, I personally feel shame that I’ve been part of the problem in allowing it to happen without screaming about it ...disgusting. This type of sculpture would normally cost anything between £15,000 and the sky’s the limit depending on scale, I offered to do the work for NOTHING, my proposal was rejected out of hand.
I attended a Regeneration meeting in the Council Chambers on Friday night and asked Ellie Fry why this might have been, she said she didn’t know but thought that a suitable site might have been a problem….. What, with all these wide pavements and historic sites? We haven't got the time to start reeling off the possibilities. Last summer we built the sort of sculpture I had been suggesting with the help of the children at Llangynwyd Primary School (I’ll post a picture of it on the blog as soon as I locate a decent one). This version is 85ft feet long, the stainless steel has been replaced by hazel and the copper rings by willow rings.
Apart from the regeneration officer rejecting this offer, we have received a letter from Louise Fradd, (Regeneration Director) which, quite frankly, made little sense at all but was forceful in assuring us that we would not be expanding our venture in Maesteg Market. I quote "Your current behaviour appears to be intimidatory to staff, traders and members of the public and complaints have been received by the Property Department concerning the same . Whist the Council continues to receive such complaints about your behaviour which is in breach of your existing tenancy it is inappropriate to consider granting you a new lease. This is not in any way a bullying tactic to silence your complaint but is the legal and factual position.” UNBELIEVABLE…Our livelihoods are being threatened by this statement. Do you know of anyone in this town or anywhere else who would ever describe Debs and my behaviour as INTIMIDATING???? But get this, earlier in the same letter it states, "The market is viewed by many (we don’t know any) new businesses as an incubator, from which they can expand at a later date, for example to Maesteg Town centre or to BRIDGEND MARKET"!!!!! It goes on to say, “We would be willing to work with you to identify any suitable premises within the town centre, (WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE? We’re only 4ft away from being directly under the Town Hall clock, how central do they want it?) which could meet your requirement for expansion. Grant assistance may also be available to help with conversion costs.”?
It’s like living in Topsy Turvy land sometimes.
We want to start interviewing Councillors and BCBC officers, particularly in the Regeneration Directorate, on their views regarding organic food, and how regeneration is going to happen in Maesteg. Do you know anyone who might be able to help me set up streaming video on this blog?
(Try googling the ‘Chasers war on everything’, as suggested by Neo, our friend in Tasmania, the ‘Stupid Americans’ clip is incredible, if not scary).
Kind regards
Geoff and Debs
23 July 2007 07:52
Delete
Anonymous RICHARD IVOR DAVID said...
GOOD LUCK TO SNATCH CAFE THE MORE THR MERRIER COMPETITION IS GOOD FOR EVERY ONE I THINK MAESTEG MARKET SHOULD BE MADE TO BE OPEN FROM EARLY TO LATE AND ALL STALL HOLDERS SHOULD BE MADE TO STAY OPEN NOT LIKE IT IS NOW 2-00 ON SAT COMON TRADERS GET TOGETHER AND MAKE MAESTEG THE BEST AGAIN
23 July 2007 10:55
Delete
Blogger The Snatch said...
Thank you for your comment Richard, I don't suppose the Old House has become the success it is today through closing your doors when customers wanted to spend money with you.
regards
Geoff
23 July 2007 23:50
Delete
Anonymous the beak said...
Interviewing politicians and council officials is hot news it's happening in America right now see todays guardian, I don't know how to leave a proper link, but this is the address. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2133903,00.html
You Tube is where you need to be looking, try finding a student to help you. Also check out the Quirk report about traders taking control of markets of the authorities.
GOOD LUCK
25 July 2007 12:54
Delete
Anonymous A.T. Rader said...
This whole business is outrageous, but par for the course. I will follow this blog intently. Duplication of business my arm.... Other plans methinks!!!!!
There must be a local TV station that would be interested in this outrageous abuse of power. If this blog wasn't running your dispute would by now be slipping smoothly under the carpet.
Watching and waiting.
Good Luck to you both.
28 July 2007 14:05
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anne - Maesteg resident and passionate about our town
The Council should let Deb & Jeff use designated area to provide seating for their valuable customers. For goodness sake, that corner of the market has been an eyesore for many years and is crying out for renovation and good use. I know from personal experience the Council take many weeks, sometimes months to process rental applications - they should be encouraging usage of every square foot - revenue for BCBC and business/services for customers.
It has been mentioned by BCBC that the market units have been used as a stepping stone by new businesses and therefore cause a high turnover for rentals - new businesses have to start somewhere and if they are as successful as the Snatch Cafe - support and encouragement should be the way forward, not barriers!
Jeff & Deb - I hope you win this very pointless argument.
31 July 2007
31 July 2007 12:29
Delete
Anonymous Lynne said...
Geoff and Debbie
Your cafe is the best thing to happen to Maesteg in a long time. The food is healthy, fresh and lovingly prepared. Your vision for an arts cafe is exciting and would be a wonderful asset to this sadly neglected town.
I have nothing but admiration for you both.
Lynne
01 August 2007 05:47
Delete
Anonymous margaret said...
Also passionate about Maesteg.
Have I got this right? Debbie and Geoff were allowed to open The Snatch as a take-away only??? I've used the Snatch at least a couple of times a week since it opened and I always stay for lunch, coffee and all too often a slice of delicious home-made organic cake. It is not the most comfortable way to enjoy well prepared food, but the quality outweighs the discomfort for myself and many like me. I think we are witnessing a drowning department grasping at ever more flimsy straws.
Watching this blog is better than watching Big Brother.
03 August 2007 02:57
Delete
Anonymous joanne said...
Why has the Gazette stopped following this story? To get a fair picture I hope that customers and traders be interviewed when the Ombudsman investigates this fiasco?
04 August 2007 01:48
Delete
Anonymous frank said...
If what you say is true and it must be said it has the ring of truth about it. Why would you have invested a lot of money into a failing market had you not believed in the regeneration potential of Maesteg market. Why not bring it back to its former glory, because quite frankly in it’s heyday it knocked Bridgend into a cocked hat, and Maesteg has the passion and talent to do the same again. I think fear of competition is where the true problem lies. When Maesteg market was ruined overnight by the erection of the outside buildings, which stopped the immensely popular travelling traders bringing their lorries in, Bridgend would have seen an overnight surge in business. At this time there were buses bringing people into Maesteg from Bridgend and all around, these people spent a lot of money in our town and we reciprocated in theirs, people like a day out somewhere different, but what does Maesteg now have that’s different from Bridgend. And why is the Regeneration Department blocking a new venture??? Disgusting!
The development in Maesteg market has had a devastating effect on trade in the town. I’m nearly fifty years old, and my generation are all fully aware of this. In my mind the question has always been, how considered was the ‘development’? There are a number of possibilities, maybe it was done because it was seen as a move that would give Bridgend a huge trading advantage with Maesteg picking up the bill, or maybe it was an almighty blunder which gave Bridgend a huge trading advantage with Maesteg picking up the bill. Whatever the reason it certainly did not help our town in any way shape or form and continues to cost Maesteg dearly. Does anyone know whose daft idea it was in the first place?
What on earth are BCBC playing at?
Good Luck to all at The Snatch
10 August 2007 09:45
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
dear all at the snatch,
dont give up your fight!! Maesteg DOES need as much new business as it can get and you should have the freedom to grow your business. good luck and best wishes.
TO THE COUNCIL: GROW UP AND STOP WASTING OUR COUNCIL TAX FIGHTING WITH HONEST, HARD WORKING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY BENEFIT MAESTEG(something which you know nothing about!!).
11 August 2007 21:10
Delete
Anonymous Amazed in Cwmfelin said...
I am amazed this situation has not been resolved. For goodness sake BCBC sort yourself out. Just be open and honest and stop this messing around.
12 August 2007 11:24
Delete
Blogger The Snatch said...
Dear amazed in cwmfelin, we too are in a state of disbelief that this matter has not yet been resolved. We thank you for reading our lengthy blog. It must be apparent to all by now that there is a very thick mist surrounding the Property Department at BCBC. For some peculiar reason we are being denied access to the rules we are expected to obey. All we are asking for is fair play.
The statements issued by the Regeneration Directorate and the Property Department to deny our business expansion amount to nonsense. In attempting to define the ‘ no duplication of trades’ policy/view the Property Department have very publicly tried to validate gobbledygook. Yet we are expected to accept this nonsense as policy.
.
My name has been blackened publicly in the Gazette for no offence other than seeking clarification of the policy that affects all traders. It seems we are expected to accept this outrage.
We are trying to get on with our lives but the Property Department continue to prevent us from doing so. To find out how this can be we, have to know the answers to our straightforward questions. It is all we have ever asked for. The Property Department’s persistent refusal to make the rules clear has caused this whole farcical scenario to unfold. We have advised BCBC many times now that we are not used to this sort of treatment and would like it to stop. There is no valid reason for stopping us trading in Unit 2, nor has there ever been. Many people, ourselves included believe that denial of access to Unit 2 has been used as a lever to ensure we do not criticise the actions and dubious policies of the Property Department. This action has cost us thousands of pounds and we have made BCBC well aware of this fact. The general consensus is that they have dug themselves an enormous hole and they don’t know how to get out of it. Let us not forget that not only have they cost us more money than we can afford to lose, but they have given the Gazette a statement that makes no sense at all and blackened my name to boot. Bloggers, traders and the public have suggested that the Gazette have backed away because in printing an unsubstantiated allegation against my person they are somehow liable. We are not sure about this, I will send a copy of this letter to Deborah Rees at the Gazette and see if she can shed any light on it. Please watch this space for a reply.
So why are the Property Department so keen to close down correspondence and meet with us behind closed doors, it just makes no sense at all.
When our children fall out it is often because one of them is telling lies, (They are brother and sister aged 9 and 8 so we make allowances.) they have not yet grasped the fact that lying leads to problems. Our solution is to send them off to their rooms until the offender owns up. We have noticed that the offender is always the quieter of the two, whilst the victim is screaming and bawling his or her innocence. We are now in our room with the Property Department in theirs. We are incensed at the shabby treatment we have been subjected to by BCBC. We have stated our case thoroughly and comprehensively. We have waited for twelve months to hear how the rules can apply to different traders in different ways, what they have offered us to date is utter nonsense. We would like to get on with our lives but they are not letting us? Why on earth would they wish to remain so quiet for so long?
You may have read that Fiona Blick (for Property Manager) has tried to close down communication with us on three occasions, and denied us information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on two occasions. We are aware that various legal bodies are reading this blog and we have it on good authority that the Property Department are bound to provide us with the information we have requested or otherwise provide us with an explanation of what exemptions have been applied to permit them to deny us access. Today we have emailed civil liberties group with the heading ‘Red Alert…Freedom of Information Act 2000 not recognised in Bridgend!!!!.”
It is our opinion that if we went behind closed doors with members of the Property Department we would be asked to promise that we would never misbehave in the Market again, though we have never once misbehaved. In one fell swoop this apology would then validate all of BCBC’s actions against us. This is something that is not going to happen. A spokesman for the authority blackened my name in the Gazette and I have both been told in a letter from Fiona Blick “over the last couple of weeks your general behaviour within the market and in particular towards Council Officers and other Market Traders has deteriorated to the point of becoming completely unacceptable. This is impacting on the reputation of Maesteg Market and it’s attractiveness as a retailing outlet for shoppers, with potentially damaging impact on other existing stall holders businesses and the ability in the future of encouraging new tenants to occupy stalls within the market.” this statement is nothing less than a complete and utter fabrication, yet it seems that BCBC officers can say what they want about anybody with absolute immunity. This is a very scary scenario indeed. In far-flung lands this type of operation where ad hoc policy is the norm and where individuals wield incontestable and erroneous power over others is known as a dictatorship. People are imprisoned for merely hinting at the shortcomings of the authorities. We are told that we are living in a democracy, but in witnessing the evasive action of the Property Department and their ability to stand firm while they assure us that black is in fact white we believe this is a clear display of dictatorial tendencies, we feel we should all be deeply concerned by this development.
Thank you for your comment.
13 August 2007 06:12
Delete
Anonymous rington said...
Well done to all at the snatch. Bridgend County Borough Council have been an an object of private ridicule for years. It's a pleasure to see them being dragged out into the open and exposed for what they are. The snatch is a great asset to Maesteg Market and I have nothing but admiration for the proprietors who have stood against these nincompoops.
It's a far more noble thing to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
Lets hope more people realise the power of the blog. BCBC have been getting away with sweeping stuff under the carpet for far too long.
Best wishes
A very supportive customer.
16 August 2007 02:41
Delete
Anonymous amazed in cwmfelin said...
I have just read all the latest on your blog.
I can only agree that the state of the market itself and the cleanliness is frightful. To all who use the market DO NOT LOOK TOO CLOSELY. The ceilings are foul. The bird poo IS everywhere. Come on BCBC have pride in the market and give it a lick of paint and a ton of bleach. The traders can only do so much to keep their spots clean.
Only the other week I saw a couple of the traders having to clean the windows on the step doors.
I am horrified that it cost so much to change a light bulb. This cost must be similar for all the council buildings; schools; sports centres; community halls etc. Surely it can be done by the caretakers after hours. For goodness sake! Could this be a job for you?!?!?!?! at that hourly rate you'd be loaded in weeks... I'll hold the ladder for a cut.
I am amazed that it has been a year already. Congratulations! many others would have folded at the first pressure from BCBC. Well done. Lets hope as we start the second year you can develop and expand to provide what Maesteg is lacking.... An Organic option for the future.
Take care
22 August 2007 08:19
Delete
Anonymous Amazed in Cwmfelin said...
FANTASTIC! How soon can you be trading? Really looking forward to the new extended organic menu. Save me a stool!
18 September 2007 13:29
Delete
Blogger schmatey said...
Hello dears. Hoorah that you have now been granted tenancy of unit 2 in the market, but what a marathon journey to get there. Shame on the council for being so small minded and bigoted. Worrying to think that these individuals are making decisions about issues that affect the community!
May the Snatch continue and expand. It is a credit to you both, and a lovely bright little haven for us all to enjoy.
Love to you both and the kiddies.
Schmatey xx
22 September 2007 04:45
Delete
Blogger The Snatch said...
Hello Schmatey, Thank you for your comment. We have been told that we will be allowed to trade in Unit 2, but have not yet signed the tenancy agreement. This is supposed to happen when Paul the markets manager returns from two weeks leave.
Thank you for reading our blog.
Debbie and Geoff
23 September 2007 03:17
Delete
Blogger terrycrowley said...
I was delighted to see the opening of the snatch cafe some months ago and delighted to see a breath of much needed fresh air into the somewhat staid if not offputting approach and appearance of the once thriving market. The coffee and assorted delicious organic treats on offer were a delight to find in an otherwise barren landscape. However my experience was somewhat shortlived in that the propietors plans to expand and provide much needed seating for their patrons was discarded by what can only be described as absolute bunkum dressed up in enough red tape to cover the annual christmas tree!
Fortunately Debs and Geoff (propietors) have the determination not to bend the knee and blindly take on board the whims of "authority". Backed with much public support I was delighted to see that the expansion is now being given the "approval" that should never have been disputed.
I along with many others in the town glory in this "victory" for the small businessman and look forward to seeing the snatch expand and provide the much needed alternative scource of good food and beverage in an area that has been crying out for it for many years. The unfortunate part of this saga is the months of delay and heartache caused to Debs and Geoff not to mention costs and the loss of revenue.
Maesteg we are told is in the process of regeneration I hope that this case will be noted by the powers that be to highlight the fact that regeneration is not merely traffic chaos eventually leading to a more pleasant looking environment, but a complete change of attitude bringing in new and alternative business to the area.
Good luck to the Snatch I look forward to the expansion with eager anticipation.
24 September 2007 03:27
Delete
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
26 October 2007 11:13
Delete
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the author.
12 November 2007 02:51
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
dear Geoff,Debbie and DANIEL and all others working in the snatch.
I apologies for the delay in replying.
I recently re- read my comments about you all at the snatch, and they were out of order please accept my apologies i was really having a bad day, i went to the snatch for my usual coffee thinking about these issues of mine, and you were all in my line of fire to vent my frustrations about bank charges of all things,Please once again accept my apologies you all do a great job are pleasant the food is great and i recommend the snatch to everyone i know, all the best for the future Kenneth
25 November 2007 06:39
Delete
Blogger The Snatch said...
No problem at all Kenneth, now that you’ve retracted the statement we feel justified in erasing your comment once and for all. Please make yourself known and enjoy a coffee and cake at our expense.
Best Wishes from all at The Snatch
27 November 2007 00:41
Delete
Blogger Geoff said...
This blog is now closed the discussion has moved to;
http://www.thegoatbustersforum.blogspot.com/
Please copy and paste this into your address bar.
06 May 2008 12:45
Delete
[Photo]
My name is Geoff Fahey, my partner Debbie Kershaw and I run The Snatch, a popular organic snack and coffee shop in Maesteg Indoor Market, South Wales. The popularity of our business means that we need to expand. The Property Manager at Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC), has the final say on such matters. He is at present citing duplication of trades as the reason for refusing our proposal to provide tables and chairs for our customers. We say that organic food is not the same as non-organic food, therefore there is no duplication. An organic cafe would help increase much needed footfall in the market in general.
If you wish to read our whole story, please read on. It is a lengthy tome, but we feel that the actions of the Property Department at BCBC are threatening our civil liberties, and are taking us a step nearer to an unacceptable form of government. If you wish to cut to the chase, please scroll down to blogdate August 14th where we have attempted to summarise the events that have resulted in this online dispute between BCBC and ourselves. Please be sure to read other readers comments at the bottom of our blog, and add yours if you so wish. Please keep watching this blog and please tell your friends to tell their friends to do the same.
Thank You, and thank you for reading our blog.
The full story...
Shortly after arriving at Maesteg Market I was elected Chairman by 100% of the Traders. I was advised that the post required me to be the link between Management and Traders. Policy related enquiries are made on behalf of all traders because all traders are affected by policy.
We first enquired about market policy 11 months ago. Since trying to discover information about the policy which affects our livelihoods, life has become very difficult for us. We find it hard to believe that we are in Europe in 2007 and one person is able to deny discerning diners a table to sit at on the strength of an unsound reason. Had we been allowed a seated area, we had intended to display original art of my own and other local artists, making The Snatch the only organic arts cafe for miles around. 100% of Indoor market traders backed our proposal, and two thirds of traders overall. We have a petition with approx. 500 local names supporting us. Lindsay Tuffin, the editor of the Tasmanian Times, called regularly at the Snatch while staying with relatives in Maesteg. We discussed our problems with him, and he recognised that this was not just an issue about tables and chairs, he very kindly posted an article on his website that we had previously distributed around the Borough. The Prince of Wales, a supporter of organic food and farming methods, has personally conveyed his best wishes.
Meanwhile, back at BCBC HQ, the Property Manager holds sway. One trader said that he was aware of the Property Manager visiting Maesteg Market only once in the past eight years. The Property Manager continues to support the view of the tiniest of minorities, whilst citing the non-existent infringement of an unwritten rule as the reason for refusal. This makes for a very peculiar scenario indeed.
It is our belief that if one person in one small Department can exercise this much influence over the potential growth of a business in Maesteg, a town that is, after all, competing for business with Bridgend, then the question is not about the need for tables and chairs in Maesteg Indoor Market but more pressingly, of where to run to with our children.
Please read on.
Below is a brief resume of what has gone before, with some of the more important issues given a special mention. It is our intention to publish correspondence between BCBC and The Snatch as the need arises. Please feel free to add your comments. Thank you.
In the last letter we received from BCBC Property Manager's office, we were advised that there would be no further correspondence from the Property Department with regard to matters that are of great concern to us. This is the second time an officer from the Property Department has expressed a wish to close down communication between us. It is, however, vital those channels of communication remain open in order to clarify the existing anomalies in the ‘unwritten policy’, and to thereby avoid future misunderstandings between Traders and Management. Our last letter listed 16 points that required further clarification. We do not feel secure in not understanding the content of the letter we received through the Regeneration Directorate? which touched on 'unwritten policy'. In seeking an explanation, we are being treated as a nuisance.
As a direct result of seeking clarification of the elusive policy that directly affects the livelihoods of all traders in the market, I have been told by BCBC that my "behaviour is impacting on the reputation of Maesteg Market and its attractiveness as a retailing outlet for shoppers, with potentially damaging impact on other existing stall holders' businesses and the ability in the future of encouraging new tenants to occupy vacant stalls within the market”?
This blog is a golden opportunity for anyone, including the author, who believes there to be any truth in this statement to make your voice heard. The statement is in fact as absurd as it is evidently untrue. Had my behaviour not been witnessed to be impeccable at all times, this statement would have given us great cause for concern.
Since Market ‘policy’ according to the Property Manager is an ‘unwritten policy’, then presumably the Property Manager has to recall it from memory when aspects of it are brought into question? We believe that this method of storing policy is prone to human error. As the policy is ‘not set in stone’, we asked why it is not set in stone, and how a trader could be protected against discrimination and/or personal whim, when this method of policy is employed? The silence that ensued should have come as no surprise, because up until the recent emergence of a few clues as to the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’, which arrived rather peculiarly via the Regeneration Directorate, we have been unable to get a clear policy-related answer in 11 months. Now that we have been given a few clues as to its structure, nobody can make head nor tail of it.
One would imagine that an ‘unwritten policy’ is a flexible policy, constructed to accommodate shifting trends. This particular ‘unwritten policy’ may as well have been consigned to a box marked ‘No Chance’ and locked in a room, in a dark recess of Angel Street marked ‘No Entry to Anyone’.
We have now requested the same information of the Property Manager, under The Freedom of Information Act.
Having read through our tenancy agreement at the outset and finding nothing in it to say that we would not be permitted tables and chairs, we thought it a reasonable assumption that we would be entitled to the same treatment as other traders. We noted that the Property Department appeared to consider a comfortable place to dine as a civilized necessity as they do for the two cafes and one café-cum-delicatessen in Bridgend Indoor Market. There is, incidentally, also a takeaway in Bridgend market, this makes a mockery of the no duplication of trades claim. We fail to see any logic in the Property Managers argument? In view of the preferential treatment enjoyed by traders and customers in Bridgend Market, to deny Maesteg shoppers a place to sit and eat in the Indoor Market is a gross insult. Our customers are being treated as second-class citizens, and we are being treated as if we are in a trading category all of our own.
We would like to see Maesteg market thriving once again. Since the advent of Internet shopping and with the imminent arrival of a Superstore, which will undoubtedly affect many businesses in the town, we believe that the encouragement and promotion of original ideas is the best hope there is of regenerating interest in the Market and the town in general. From the publication ‘Market Trader’ we learn that in successful ethnic markets, food stalls make up 85% of the whole, and do very well as a result. In our opinion, one of the main obstacles to Maesteg Market achieving its full potential, is that some established traders object to duplication of their businesses. We personally believe that healthy competition is great for business, it brings out the best, raises standards and threatens only mediocrity. By the same token, we believe that there is room for 3 more diverse cafes in Maesteg market. We would raise no objection to these cafes selling organic food, and in fact, would encourage them to do so.
There is public demand for a café in the indoor market, our customers are incredulous that they are being denied this most civilised of simple pleasures on the authority of one person. A seated area in the Indoor Market would be easily accessible by wheelchairs and prams. It is a safe and convenient waiting area for buses or taxis. We have suggested to the Property Department that a web cam link to the bus station from all areas of the market would be a great advantage to traders and shoppers alike (nobody is holding their breath). Until there is a comfortable waiting area for buses, and when the weather is inclement, a seated area in the market would serve as a very acceptable alternative waiting room.
We would like to remind the Property Manager that the customer is king. We would remind him also, that the most difficult time for any business is in its first year. Market research is essential, reacting to market trends is vital to sustaining a business. So, when customers advise us of how they would like to spend their money in the market, we listen intently. We will go out of our way to accommodate their wishes. Other traders have commented on how The Snatch has been good for the Indoor Market, with a steadily increasing footfall since our arrival. We are capitalizing upon an old, but successful formula, people will always enjoy eating good, healthy food. Less obstruction from the Property Department when traders are trying to accommodate the desires of discerning customers will only be good for the market. We are keen to know what experience or qualifications the Property Manager or anyone else in the Property Department has, with regard to running a small business, so that we may know who best to discuss our ideas with regarding the regeneration of business in Maesteg Market.
The Property Department have made it clear that their only obligation to us is as Landlord to Tenant. Why is it then, when we read through all of the correspondence between us, it becomes clear that our path has been strewn with Property Department made obstacles from the outset?
The Council have advised us that they are continuing to receive letters regarding our behaviour in the market. We would like to see evidence to support this allegation.
Through seeking policy information we have been accused of various serious misdemeanours. The most serious of these were made against me twice in private by the Market Manager's line manager, who we know to be a qualified surveyor, presumably with a background in running small businesses? I rejected the unsubstantiated allegations out of hand and demanded that they were put in writing so that I could deal with them accordingly. The original harassment allegation was reduced to bad behaviour. This accusation alone is enough to cost us our livelihoods. We absolutely deny this allegation and any subsequent allegations that have been made against us.
It is interesting to note that in the midst of this dispute we were surprised to be told that we may be eligible for grant assistance to move into Maesteg Town Centre, or even to Bridgend Market. We thought we were already in the town centre, and Bridgend Traders were surprised to hear that it had been suggested we move into a Market which is already well served with cafes. What is wrong with encouraging business into Maesteg Market? We are, however, very interested in any financial assistance available to help expand The Snatch.
We have advised the Property Department that the various forms of duplication considered permissible under the ‘policy not to duplicate trades’, are of great interest to us, e.g. ‘ancillary line’ duplication and ‘same tenant’ duplication. We are keen to learn how these seemingly complex policies appear to affect different traders in different ways, so that we may become eligible for inclusion. This information will be indispensable for the many people, including ourselves, who are having difficulty understanding some of the finer points of the ‘unwritten policy’.
We have also advised the Property Department that we are very puzzled by a spokesman for the Council stating that "the authority has a policy not to duplicate trades at the market and Mr Fahey’s application has been turned down” (Gazette May 10th). This was the official reason given for our customers being denied the simple pleasure of sitting at a table, to meet and eat healthy organic food. To maintain this stance is to publicly endorse the view that organic food is the same as non-organic food. We believe that the increasing volumes of evidence to the contrary render this position indefensible. Organic food is good news, the right to sit and eat it should not be an issue.
Access to Unit 2. In time honoured fashion, we purchased Unit 2 for Three thousand pounds. This money represented further investment into our belief in our business and in Maesteg Market. We borrowed the money with the expectation that we would be able to pay it back fairly quickly as a result of our projected increased turnover. We were stopped trading in the unit for three highly contentious reasons, this action has caused our family considerable financial discomfort, we made this clear to the Property Department immediately. The reasons for denying us access are listed below.
1. Because we weren’t insured. In fact we were, and are.
2. Because we hadn’t submitted a plan. But we had explained precisely what equipment would be going into the unit, and the Market Manager had accepted our proposal both verbally and by email, (available upon request) his words were final and in no way vague. The plan was to follow at a later unspecified date. We didn’t think there was any rush, why should there have been, when our plan for Unit 1 was not submitted until some time after we had begun trading.
3. Because of our bad behaviour. We wholly refute this allegation.
Unit 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with our request for a café in the indoor market. In buying Unit 2 we acquired two commercial refrigerators and a large refrigerated display cabinet, all necessary to cope with our expanding business. Not only are we losing income daily through not being able to display food and extending our counter area, we are having to manage our business out of one, under the counter, fridge. We are throwing away large amounts of expensive organic food on a daily basis because we are being denied acces to our refrigeration space. We have advised the Property Department that we are in fact insured to be in Unit 2, but this has yet to be acknowledged. We believe that denying us access to unit 2, is a highly questionable action, which continues to cause us great financial difficulty. This is a fact the Property Department have been made aware of. As a direct result of our being denied access we are having to live off the money we had set aside to invest in catering equipment for unit 2. This highly questionable punishment not only affects us but also our children. We have never before been subjected to this sort of treatment, and have requested that it stops.
We have been advised by BCBC that ‘this is not a bullying tactic, but is the factual and legal position.’ We do not agree.
The current problems have arisen because we have been unable to get a clear definition of the policy that so greatly affects the lives of all traders and the potential prosperity of Maesteg Market. Clarification of all points can only further facilitate the smooth running of the market, by eradicating future misunderstanding, and in doing so allow the market to move towards its full potential.
There is however a chink of light permeating this very cloudy issue. We have been invited to meet with the Property Manager. There are, as we have already mentioned, a few points that will need clarifying in advance of the meeting in order that all present are in full possession of the facts, and to facilitate a balanced discussion. Among other questions we will be asking precisely how many names are required on a petition before the Property Department will acknowledge public will, and the current unacceptable situation is reviewed? I have been contacted by Huw Irranca-Davies' office who have asked for a copy of the petition. Our meeting will be the ideal opportunity for us to present it to the Property Manager.
We have informed the Property Manager that we would like to invite the following interested parties to the meeting:
Huw Irranca Davies MP
Vic Gilbert (SHOUT)
Marcelle Humphreys (Maesteg Traders representative)
Alistair Rosenberg (Bridgend Traders representative)
4 people (To represent a cross section of the public of Maesteg)
Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
Andrew Harrison (Glamorgan Gazette).
We would like to take this opportunity to thank our customers for their continuing support. Also, on behalf of our customers and fellow traders we would like to thank the Property Manager for inviting us to attend what we hope will be a propitious meeting. This is a great opportunity to put the past behind us and begin to turn around the fortunes of Maesteg Market. We sincerely believe that only good can come of it.
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
The Snatch
Maesteg Indoor Market
All correspondence between BCBC and The Snatch is open to public scrutiny.
Please see our appeal which was kindly published by the Editor of the Tasmanian Times.
We live in a catchment area of something in excess of 25,000 people; about five individuals have so far raised objections to our café, yet they continue to call the shots. Is there anyone out there who can help us begin to understand why this is so?
Please take time to read other peoples comments and add your own if you wish. You may remain anonymous, but please let your voice be heard. Please post our web address to anyone in your address book who might be interested in seeing a democratic outcome to this sorry tale. Thank You.
As of today we will be posting a daily diary of events. if nothing happens, then we will tell you that nothing has happened.
Thursday July 5th 2007 12:46pm
Today we received a second supportive letter from Buckingham Palace.
We have heard nothing from the Council.
Friday July 6th 2007 11:10am
No news from the Council.
Monday July 9th 2007 11:31am
No news from the Council.
Tuesday July 10th 2007 4:27pm
We delivered our petition to Huw Irranca-Davies’ office.
We have still heard nothing from the Property Department.
As we have no doubt the Property Manager will want to make his views clear to us, we have invited him to join us online. The following email was sent to the property manager today.
Dear Property Manager, We are concerned at not having heard if the situation regarding unit 2 has been reviewed yet? As you will be aware, the current position is proving to be a very expensive experience for us. If it has been resolved, could you please advise us what we need to do to gain access? While we wait for our meeting, please feel free to post a comment on our blog. http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
Paperwork is expensive, and a needless waste of resources. As this is a matter of public interest we would like to continue our dispute online. This will be more convenient than a gathering in the market place and is open to a wider audience.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw & Geoff Fahey
Wednesday July 11th 2007
No news from the Council
Thursday July 12th 2007 11:31am
No word from the Council.
We sent a letter to Gordon Brown, the new Prime Minister today. Below is a copy of that letter.
The Snatch
Maesteg Indoor Market
Maesteg
Mid Glamorgan
12th July 2007
Dear Prime Minister
Our town, Maesteg, is currently undergoing regeneration. Yet, as you will see from our blog, http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com, we are encountering enormous and illogical resistance regarding our plans to expand our very popular organic snack and coffee shop. Our business is the first of its kind in the area, and has increased footfall in the market since our arrival 11 months ago.
100% of Indoor Market traders (it is they who would be most affected), two thirds of traders overall and approx 500 members of the public signed a petition supporting our proposal in the first couple of weeks of our campaign. It would clearly be an advantageous move for the town. However, the Property Department at Bridgend County Borough Council has taken a very peculiar and rigid stance on the matter, as you will see in our blog.
Could you please advise us on how you think regeneration should be achieved? We would also appreciate your views regarding organic food, and the right to sit and eat it?
We have received two letters from the office of the Prince of Wales personally conveying his best wishes and confirming his support of organic food and farming methods.
Your view would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw & Geoff Fahey
A copy of this letter will be posted on our blog.
Friday July 13th 2007 3:30pm
No word from the council.
We note that Unit 3, which we expressed interest in for a cafe is still empty 10 weeks after the previous tenant vacated it.
Unit 6c has a Unit to Let sign in the window, this is odd because the Property Department advised us that there is a list of people waiting to come into the market? We asked to see a copy of the list and were advised that we were not permitted because of the Data Protection Act. We have written to explain that we are not in the slightest bit interested in the names and addresses of the people on the list, but are very interested in their business proposals, as this information has a direct bearing on the livelihoods of every trader in the market. Nothing has been forthcoming? Where are the people on the list?
Have a good weekend.
Monday July 16th 11:40am
No word from the council.
Today we posted the following email to the people listed below.
Hello, we have been trying to get a reply from the Property Department to no avail. As you will see from our blog http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com this is a matter of great importance to us and to the traders and people of Maesteg. If you cannot help with this matter, could you please post this message on to someone who can?
Thank You
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
Dr. Jo Farrar (Chief Executive Officer)
Ian Aitken (Property manager)
Louise Fradd (Regeneration Directorate)
Cheryl Green (Leader)
Cllr Bob Burns (attached to property department)
Paul Carter (Markets manager)
Linda Smith (Access officer)
Deborah Rees (Editor Glamorgan Gazette)
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog.
Wednesday July 18th 2007 5:00pm
We received a letter from the Council yesterday stating that they would be happy for us to have a meeting, but not with all the interested parties we wished to attend. We replied by email today, and have accepted that the Property managers office might be a bit tight on space with a delegation of ten. We have now requested that just four people be permitted to attend, they are Huw Irranca-Davies MP, a councillor, the vice chair to be of Maesteg traders, and the Chairman of Bridgend traders. we have also requested that we be permitted to record the meeting so that we may publish accurately all that is discussed, should the need arise.
We also requested that ‘same trader’ and ‘ancillary’ duplication are explained to further our understanding of how the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ works in practice. We have requested this information in advance of the meeting.
We were also advised that we have been provided with answers to the queries we raised previously, this mail must have got lost in the post, we have requested another copy be sent.
We felt that the tone of the letter we received from the Property Department was more friendly than of late.
Thursday July 19th 2007 5:30pm
Yesterday’s email was sent to the following recipients.
Huw Irranca-Davies MP
Dr Jo Farrar (Chief Executive Officer)
Ian Aitken (Property Manager)
Louise Fradd (Regeneration Directorate)
Cllr Cheryl Green (Leader)
Cllr Bob Burns
Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
Property Department
We were advised electronically that Huw Irranca-Davies, Louise Fradd and Cheryl Green did not receive theirs. We will try to contact Huw Irranca-Davies’ office, and presume that LF and CG will be forwarded a copy by their colleagues.
Apart from an electronically generated message from the Property Department requesting our postal address, nobody has yet acknowledged or responded to our email.
Friday July 20th
We have received another prompt response from the Council. We are grateful for this and will respond on Monday.
Have a good weekend.
Monday July 23rd 11:00am
We replied to the Property Department this morning, below is a copy of the email.
The Snatch
23rd July 2007
Dear Mrs Blick,
Please Note. The drawn out correspondence you are keen to avoid is only occurring because you are replying to our mail but you have steadfastly avoided answering our questions. We have asked the same thing many times in many different ways over the past eleven months. In a nutshell we just want a clue as to how the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ applies to different traders in different ways. Our questions have always been simple and direct, we do not understand your apparent reluctance to answer them. We apologise for the length of the letter you are about to read, it is a resume of some of the questions we have put to the Property Department since first arriving at the market.
We thank you for your prompt reply. We are pleased to note that this important matter is now receiving the full attention it deserves. If it carries on at this pace our issue will be settled in no time at all. If no other good comes of our problems, we hope that future queries about policy will be dealt with as they arise. This might be an opportune time to make a written record of the ‘unwritten policy’, and to make it clear and accessible to all affected by it.
Now that we are corresponding again we have dispensed with the need for a meeting, or paperwork. All relevant parties are aware of our blog, and most of the facts are on the table for all to see, we are in fact having our meeting online, please feel free to respond online to save us printing extracts of your letters for our readers, and in order for everyone to get the full unedited picture. Whilst you do not see the need for the Chair of Bridgend Market Traders or the Vice Chair-to-be of Maesteg Traders to be present, (your letter 19th July) we do, and in this marvellous age of computer wizardry we may all be present, public and all, with no congestion in Angel Street. All we need now in order to move forward is for you to respond to the content of our emails. We require answers to the many queries we have put to you over the past eleven months, which are pertinent to the security of all traders. You stated in your letter of 13th July “I consider that I have provided you with answers to the queries you have raised” We did not receive the answers to the 16 queries we put to you regarding Louise Fradd’s letter of 30th May, which provided us with a peek at the very confusing ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’. Would you kindly forward us another copy? We have repeated some of our questions below.
In your letter of 19th July you suggest that you do not wish to enter into extensive correspondence. We too are keen to avoid this, and had we been receiving answers to our numerous queries over the past eleven months, correspondence would have ended a long time ago. We do, however, wish to retain a hard copy as events unfold, as we fear we could not take on board the full complexities of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ at a single meeting. We hope you will appreciate this fact. We believe that all problems that have arisen are as a direct result of our initially not knowing, and then not understanding, the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’. We hope we will now finally learn how it works so that we may concentrate our efforts on promoting our unique organic arts café, which can only serve to regenerate interest in Maesteg Market and therefore have a knock-on effect in the town.
As we have explained on numerous occasions, it is a matter of great urgency that we expand our business at your earliest convenience, in order to cope with the increased business we have built, and to utilise the refrigeration space we have bought, but are being denied access to. We have already cleaned pigeon faeces and feathers off the counter and also noted that the bakery counter has been defecated upon. We realise we are not technically allowed behind the counter but thought it a good idea in the interest of health and hygiene, to clear up the mess, we hope we did the right thing. Please advise. As Paul suggested back in March, being a food counter, Unit 2, needs a roof over it, food counters could really do with shutters all round to prevent the pigeons that occasionally get in causing a serious health hazard.
At the moment we are being made to look foolish as we struggle to cope with the business we have generated, in a unit we outgrew a long time ago. Fortunately, all customers and traders are aware of our situation and are sympathetic in waiting, as we are, for a more extensive menu and a more comfortable place to enjoy our fine food. We have stated many times now that we do not feel secure in not understanding the ‘unwritten policy not set in stone’. We appreciate you have no desire to write down these rules, but we do, because it is the livelihood of traders that are at risk should they be broken. The ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ presented to us by Louise Fradd in her letter of 30th May appears to be an ad hoc policy, which is factually inaccurate and riddled with anomalies that require further explanation in order to protect the interests of all traders. As you allow us snippets of policy, so we will make a hard copy of it, in order that future traders do not find themselves encountering the problems that are currently blighting our lives. You have shown us that ‘ancillary’ and ‘same trader’ duplication are permissible and exist in both Maesteg and Bridgend markets, we have asked many times how we become eligible for inclusion in such an advantageous trading position, we have yet to receive any answers to these simple questions.
In your letter of 13th July you state. “You have asked for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I believe that this Act gives you the ability to ask the Council for access to any recorded information it holds.
Whilst we are more than a little confused by the content of Louise Fradd’s letter of 30th May in which she made reference to, among other things, the Property Manager’s view not being a recent policy (See 1 below). We are hoping and praying that there would have been some sort of meeting or agreement to discuss the pros and cons of such an unusual policy, otherwise it could have been made up over one or two drinks with mates down the local, or otherwise been borne of ennui whilst sitting in a traffic jam, heaven forbid we have come to that.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we request the following information.
1. Louise Fradd (Director of Regeneration) stated in her letter of 30th May “However, the Property Managers view that it would be undesirable for more than one café to be operating from the market is not a recent policy” If Louise Fradd is aware that the Property Manager’s view is not a recent policy, then presumably she has some idea when it was made. We would like to see the minutes from the meeting when the policy was made.
2. Who proposed the policy?
3. We would like to know the date of the meeting when the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ was first proposed?
4. In view of the problems it has caused, who decided that it should be ‘unwritten and not set in stone’ Why was it decided it would not be written down?
5. Does the Property Department or any other Department have any other ‘unwritten policies, not set in stone?
6. What was the catalyst which created the need for the policy to be implemented in the first place, when the market was thriving with duplication abounding, then as now?
7. Who sat on the panel that implemented the policy, was there a Councillor present?
8. WHY DOESN’T THE POLICY APPLY TO ALL TRADERS IN THE SAME WAY?
9. We are keen to know the criteria necessary for us to become eligible for the ‘ancillary’ and ‘same trader’ duplication currently being enjoyed by other traders.
10. With such a flexible policy being employed, what safeguards were discussed and implemented to prevent a trader falling foul of nepotism and/or personal whim?
11. We have asked many times to see evidence to support your allegations of our being a nuisance, or of bringing down the reputation of the market, or of any intimidating behaviour towards anyone, or of any of the complaints that you continue to receive about our being a ‘nuisance’ in the market. We would like to see the evidence.
12. To implement a policy that prevents healthy competition is peculiar to say the least. To cite ‘no duplication of trades’ as the reason for refusal when we had not proposed to duplicate any trade also has an enormous question mark hanging over it. We have reminded the Property Department on many occasions that we are selling a completely different product to the outdoor café. For the Property Manager’s to stand by his view/policy is to endorse the belief that there is no difference between organic and non-organic food, this is despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, this situation is beyond our comprehension. To apply logic to this type of policy, if the Property Manager assures us that grass is red, then red it is, to the hills, to the hills!
We note that in the Gazette article 10th May, our application was being referred to as just that, a spokesman for the council said, “the authority has a policy not to duplicate trades at the market and Mr Fahey’s application has been turned down.” We had a very close working relationship with Paul Carter at the time and were not aware of anybody waiting to come into the market. However by 30th May, Louise Fradd was advising us that “The individuals on the waiting list have been contacted in relation to units 3 and 4, and have expressed an interest in taking over these stalls, and it would be inappropriate for you to be considered ahead of those on the list.” You (Fiona Blick) advised us in your letter of 13th June that you were “in the process of letting Units 3 and 4 to separate businesses” Unit 3 is still empty 11 weeks after being vacated and Unit 6c has a ‘Stall to let’ sign in the window. We asked to see a copy of the waiting list from this time and you explained in your letter of 9th May that it would not be permitted “as this information is covered by the Data Protection Act,” we wrote to tell you that we were not in the slightest bit interested in the personal details of the people on the waiting list, but were keen to know their business proposals as this information would have a direct impact upon the livelihoods of all traders in the Market. You chose to ignore our reasonable request. We would like to see the list of businesses that were waiting to come into the Market on the 16th April which was when we first learned that the tenant was leaving Units 3 and 4, and when we first expressed our interest to Paul Carter.
13. What qualifications relating to commerce or small businesses does the Property Manager or anyone else in the Property Department hold? If none, on whose expert advice was the yet to be revealed content of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ based?
14. Long standing traders, some of whom have been ‘incubating’ in the Market for sixty years, have assured us that there has always been duplication of trades, with tales of nine butchers trading at one time in a thriving Bridgend market, and of three fruit and veg stalls in Maesteg Indoor Market, and all doing well. Can this be true? We would like to see the records of businesses that have traded in Maesteg and Bridgend Market over the past sixty years.
To save time and trees, we would be pleased if you would like to use our blog to reply: http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
We have been electronically informed that Louise Fradd is not receiving our emails, as she has played a large part in our issue we would be grateful if you could forward her a copy. Thank you.
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog at: http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
Tuesday July 24th 6:40am
Yesterday we received a letter from Peter Black AM asking how it was all going. We emailed him this morning to thank him for his concern and advised him of our blog address.
Wednesday July 25th 2:05pm
Today we sent the following email to the people listed at the bottom.
The Snatch
25th July 2007
Statement
1.We wish to see Maesteg Market thriving again and have been working long and hard to that aim for the past 11 months.
2. We believe in real regeneration.
3. Fact: We tried to provide tables for our customers to sit and eat a tasty, healthy, well-presented meal. The Property Manager refused our application because of a ‘policy not to duplicate trades in the market’. Our only crime has been to pursue the fact that we are in no way duplicating any business for miles around and, anyway, duplication abounds in both Maesteg and Bridgend Markets today as it always has done. We find it incredible that the whole entity that is BCBC, from Dr. Jo Farrar (CEO) and Cheryl Green (Leader) down are, in their silence, appearing to endorse the views of the Property Manager.
4. Having lived in other parts of the U.K., we are shocked by the number of people who come to The Snatch and are brave enough to ask us “What is organic food?” It suggests there are a whole lot more in the community who don’t know.
It is, in our view, a reflection on the values of the Council that everyone from the youngest to the oldest, from the well educated to the not so well educated is not made fully aware of this most basic of facts.
We believe that BCBC and the Glamorgan Gazette should be shouting from the rooftops about the health benefits associated with eating organic food, and of the risks associated with non-organic food. This is a hot, and getting hotter topic in mainstream media. There is no need to pepper the land and our food with chemicals. People should be left in no doubt whatsoever of the associated benefits and risks in what we eat.
A number of people hold great sway over our lives. It is vital that these people are fully aware of current thinking and open enough about their own views, which have a bearing on the health of others. We do not feel it is acceptable for people in authority to remain silent on matters that affect lives.
We are keen to know of the views held by the following people about the differences between organic and non-organic food, and of the right to sit and eat it. In view of the millions of pounds that have been spent on Maesteg we would also like a short statement on how the following people believe regeneration works and on ‘town branding’, and how to do it.
We thank HRH The Prince of Wales for being the first to make his views clear to us.
We have not heard from the Prime Minister but imagine he’s up to his Wellie tops at the moment. We hope that our query has been passed to the relevant department.
Ian Aitken has not as yet acknowledged the difference.
In view of the difficulties we find ourselves in, we would appreciate the views held by the following.
Huw Irranca-Davies MP
Peter Black AM
Dr Jo Farrar (CEO)
Louise Fradd (Regeneration Directorate)
Cheryl Green (Leader)
All local councillors
Deborah Rees (Editor, Glamorgan Gazette)
A copy of this email has been posted on our blog, http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
6:26pm
Addendum sent to all previous recipients.
The Snatch
25th July 2007
Dear All
In our opinion the no ‘duplication of trades’ policy is not a sound one. I have spoken with traders from this town and many others, it is a widely accepted fact that healthy competition is a good thing. The 'no duplication of trades policy', is effectively a ‘no healthy competition’ policy, which flies in the face of good business acumen. As we have stated on many occasions, healthy competition threatens only mediocrity, it is good for business, this is a given.
But let us accept for a moment that the ‘no duplication of trades’ policy is a good thing. And was in place when we arrived at Maesteg Market.
It is then, only through satisfying the content of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ which contained the 'no duplication of trades' section, that we were allowed to open The Snatch in the first place. We were allowed into the market because we were offering organic food, which at that time was evidently being recognised by the Property Manager as the being the vastly different product from the fare on offer in the outdoor café. There is surely no doubt surrounding this fact, we would be delighted to invite anyone still unsure to taste the difference.
At this point in time the Property Manager must have been, in allowing us to trade, accepting of the fact that we were in no way duplicating another trade. This is clear.
The following is not clear. At which point did the Property Manager feel we were beginning to duplicate a trade, and was there a meeting held to discuss our infringement of view/policy? We think this view/policy could be more accurately described as a ‘no duplication of a comfortable place to sit and eat’ type view/policy. This fact has not been mentioned up until now, is it also covered in the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’? Please advise
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog. http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
For anyone still unsure about the benefits of eating organic food we 'googled' What is organic food? Google tells us there are 74,100,000 sites on the subject.
Thursday July 26th 10am
We have heard nothing from the council for the past few days. We have received no acknowledgement of any emails having been received by anyone other than the electronic message we continue to receive from the property department which we have copied and pasted below. We must presume that our mail is being read.
Thank you for your email which has been received by property@bridgend.gov.uk.
If your email warrants a substantive reply, please forward a full postal
address, as in some instances, it is the practice of the Department not to
respond by email. Once the postal address has been received, a reply should be
sent within ten working days.
The property Department has our postal address.
12:30pm
We sent the following email to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.
The Snatch
26th July 2007
Dear Sir, please read our blog, http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
We hope it clarifies the situation I outlined to your secretary.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog.
Monday 30th July
No news from the Council.
We await the answers to the questions we put to BCBC under The Freedom of Information Act 2000.
At long last we feel we may be nearing the end of a long and in our opinion egregious and unnecessary dispute.
Last week we informed the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales of our plight, we have been advised that it is now with the assessment team. We also forwarded our blog address to the Law Society, as we have been advised that it might be of interest for trainee barristers to observe proceedings. We also contacted the Society section of The Guardian newspaper, as only last week they printed an article about the arrival of Tesco in a town, and of the likely effect it will have on existing traders, also what it will mean in terms of real regeneration, a subject most dear to us.
We hope we will now be able to stand back from this dispute and let the powers that be do their stuff, and are pleased that we will once more be able to concentrate our efforts on promoting our business and spending time with our children.
We will however continue to broadcast our blog address to anyone we consider will be interested. Today we will inform the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), later in the week we will be looking at the important part art plays in regeneration, and will be contacting celebrities for their views.
We would like to thank you all for your continuing support. Please keep telling your friends to tell their friends.
We stand by our belief in organic produce, real regeneration, freedom of speech, democracy, and the absolute necessity for clear, accessible rules and transparency at all levels of Government.
Many thanks
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
We received a letter from the Ombudsman’s Senior Team Secretary today. They will be letting us know in due course whether the Ombudsman will look into our complaint. We hope so.
We received a reply from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), to inform us that The Department for Communities and Local Government has overall responsibility for this issue. We have emailed this Department.
Tuesday July 31st 2007 5pm
No news from anybody.
Today, in the interest of further education, we sent the following email to Law Faculties at Universities and Law Schools in Aberystwyth, Cambridge, Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh, Exeter, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, Swansea and Sussex. We also sent the email to the The Adam Smith Institute and The Institute for the Study of Civil Society CIVITAS.
The Snatch
31st July 2007
To whom this may concern,
We hope we are nearing the end of a dispute with our Local Authority, Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC). To protect our interests we were advised to take our plight online. If it were not for this wise advice, we believe we may have found ourselves in a position where we would have had to apologise for something that we did not do. We would be heartened to learn that this was not the case.
Could you please pass this on to any law student who might find it of interest? We have never been involved in anything of this nature before, and would prefer not to be in the throes of it now. Should you choose to read our blog, http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com you will learn that the current situation is causing us a great inconvenience, though BCBC is showing no sense of urgency in attempting to resolve our issue?
We had no idea that our simple request to know the rules would lead us to where we find ourselves today, and are keen to see an end to this matter. We opened The Snatch with an aim to do good for the market and for the people of Maesteg. We respect people and nature, hence our choice of business. We certainly did not expect to end up in the midst of what we consider to be a most bizarre situation.
We are assured by many observers and others that know us, that although it is abundantly clear why we feel we have been wronged, and even if the whole world were watching, we would have no chance of getting an apology from Bridgend County Borough Council. Is this true? We do not understand how this would be allowed to be? If you can help us gain a clearer picture of what might be happening to us please feel free to comment.
We had hoped that we would have been able to sort out these issues ourselves but were advised that going via the Ombudsman would be the best route to take. We have done this as we mentioned previously, and are now feeling great relief that our case has reached good hands.
We hope our blog will be of interest to you, if not please be so kind as to pass it on to someone who might be interested. Thank You.
We have not as yet heard from Dr Jo Farrar (CEO), or from Cheryl Green (Leader), we emailed them two weeks ago (see blog 16th July). We do not know if our dispute is still with the Property and Regeneration Departments or is now with Bridgend County Borough Council. Any suggestions?
A copy of this email will appear on our blog.
August 2nd 2007 11:30am
I have just spoken to Paul Carter (Markets Manager) to ask why, in view of the ‘no duplication of trades’ view/policy, he thought that we were allowed to trade in the market in the first place. He said, “Because you’re a take-away, that’s what I took it to be”. We have just passed our first anniversary at The Snatch and this is the first time we have been referred to by anybody as a take-away. Whilst people do take food and coffee away from The Snatch, the majority of our customers who can manage to get onto a stool and stay to eat do just that. Our sincere apologies to old people, blind people, small people, disabled people, nursing mothers, unsteady people, people in wheelchairs and people who like to sit around a table for a chat and a bite to eat. If it’s any consolation, at times we also feel like it's just not fair.
We always have a group of able bodied, reasonably fit people sat around our counter, along with a few precariously perched (BCBC please note.) elderly or disabled but determined others. We have people standing to eat because our limited stools are all too often taken, or even more of a concern to us, walking out of the market for want of somewhere comfortable to sit. Our customers come to The Snatch for the company, and to discuss the town regeneration among other things, as much as they do the food, we know this because they have told us so. There is nothing in our contract to say that we are a take-away, and we have never considered ourselves as such. From day one we have never been a take-away, hence the existence of ceramic, glassware and other eat-in accoutrements that arrived with the first delivery from our supplier and have been in constant use ever since. We note that the outside cafe also does take-away, so are even more puzzled by the Manager's statement.
In the interest of education we have sent our blog address to Harvard and Yale Law Schools, so that interested students may observe proceedings and note similarities and differences between American and British Law.
Friday 3rd August
Have a good weekend.
Wednesday 8th August 9am
Not a peep.
Friday 10th August 4:45pm
Today we recieved the following letter from Fiona Blick for the Property Manager.
Dear Mr Fahey & Ms Kershaw
Stall 1, Maesteg Indoor Market
On 23 July 2007, you E-mailed a long letter to a number of people. The E-mail is addressed to me, but I never actually received it directly from yourself.
In response, I believe that in previous correspondence I have made my position clear. I do not now intend responding to the multitude of questions you have posed. Please either accept the Council’s position as landlord of Maesteg Market or consider re-locating elsewhere.
I do not consider that your requests fall within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act.
Whilst the offer to meet with you remains open, I will not be entering into any further correspondence on this matter.
Yours sincerely
FM Blick
For Property Manager
We replied with the letter below which was sent to the Property Department, Huw Irranca-Davies MP, Peter Black AM, Dr Jo Farrar(CEO), Paul Carter (Markets Manager), Louise Fradd (Regeneration Director), Ian Aitken (Property Manager), Cheryl Green (Leader) Cllr Bob burns (Attached to Property Department), Linda Smith (Access) and Deborah Rees at the Gazette.
The Snatch
10th August 2007
Dear Mrs Blick
Our apologies for not replying directly to your email address, unless we are mistaken we have never had your email address, nor do we know what position you hold within BCBC. Please be so kind as to update us and we will be pleased to send our emails directly to you. It is of course in our interest to ensure you receive our mail as quickly as possible. The email address at the top of your letters reads property@bridgend.gov.uk, if this is no longer valid, please advise. We had presumed that your tardiness in replying was due to your taking leave until 31st July. You will note that although our issue is of great urgency, we had the good grace not to mention your leave earlier in the blog,
In time honoured fashion we purchased Unit 2. We invested three thousand pounds into refrigeration, extra space and trading rights. Before making this considerable investment we discussed this transaction fully with Paul Carter (Markets Manager). As we have stated many times now, he accepted our proposal, otherwise we most certainly would not have parted with any money.
You will note that it is a matter of utmost urgency that we are permitted to trade in unit 2. There is no valid reason that anyone other your Department can see to stop us doing so. You have so far offered three invalid reasons for denying us access. We do not understand why you persist in doing so? Our customers do not understand why you are denying us access, Paul Carter, your own Manager does not understand why you are denying us access. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, could you please clarify your reasons? You have now stopped us trading for months. We have made you aware on numerous occasions that this action is causing us great distress as a family.
You tell us in your letter that you have made yourself clear in previous correspondence? The only thing that is abundantly clear is your wish to avoid answering our questions, they are a multitude only because of your Departments refusal to answer any questions over a twelve-month period. You are still not answering our questions even when we request information under the Freedom of Information Act, in refusing to do so the Property Department appears to be omnipotent.
Of course we accept the Council’s position as landlord of Maesteg Market this fact has never been in question, we are puzzled as to why you are suggesting that we don’t?
We spent a great deal of time researching the area and looking for the perfect location for our unique new venture, and were delighted when Unit 1 became available. This was it, perfect in every way. You will note we spent thousands of pounds developing and stocking The Snatch, our market research has paid off. We were more than happy to invest in our business and are obviously helping to regenerate interest in the Market. Why does the Regeneration Directorate and the Property Department think this wrong? We really do not understand why we are being obstructed and treated differently from other traders. Nor do we understand why you do not have to tell us why we are being treated differently to other traders. This makes for a very insecure workplace indeed.
We note that you do not consider that our ‘requests fall within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act’ 2000. Is this a personal consideration or is it the legal position? You will be aware that a proper procedure must be applied when dealing with requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Act presumes that information will be released. Could you please give us a full explanation as to what exemptions have been applied to permit you to deny us access to the information we requested? It is most important that we have access to this information, for all the reasons mentioned in previous correspondence.
Your offer to meet only arose because of your constantly wishing to close down communication with us, a wish you have expressed yet again in your latest letter. We cannot emphasise enough the need to keep channels of communication open. You must understand that the last time one of your officers (Nicola Watkins) requested a meeting behind closed doors, the result was very ugly indeed, and was of course the catalyst for our shouting out in disgust. We are reluctant to attend a meeting that cannot be recorded. We cannot imagine what you might wish to say to us in private that cannot be said in our blog. We have absolutely nothing to hide, please speak openly and freely.
We look forward to hearing from you. Please email directly to our blog, paperwork is unnecessary in the electronic age and at the end of the day it’s good to be prudent with taxpayer's money. Thank You
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
Fiona Blick has advised us that she is not receiving our emails directly. Would someone be so kind as to pass this one on. Thank You.
A copy of this letter, and of your letter to us has been published on our blog.
Have a good weekend.
Monday 13th August 5pm
No news from the Council.
Today we contacted a number of civil liberties groups. We also contacted Deborah Rees, editor of the Glamorgan Gazette to ask why she wasn't following this story. We will keep you posted as to her reply.
We have been contacted by the Ombudsman to say that he deals only with cases of maladministration by Council employees or complaints against Councillors, and does not touch cases of a legal nature. We were however directed to another office which has proved to be far more helpful.
9:26pm
Today we emailed the following letter to Fiona Blick and all the usual recipients.
Dear Mrs Blick
We fully understand your desire to close down communication with us. Please rest assured the desire is mutual, the only difference being is our need to fully understand the intricacies of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ before we can feel secure in further investing in Maesteg Market.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is an aid to achieving transparency in government, something I’m sure you’ll agree we can’t have too much of. It seems to be made for our case. If you really are going to ignore our requests for information under the FOI Act, could you please communicate with us one more time to tell us so. If we have not heard from you by 5pm tomorrow (Tuesday) we will assume that you have remained true to your word and have closed down correspondence with us. We will then take appropriate action.
To make it easier for you to reply we have included our blog address.
http://snatchcafe.blogspot.com
Yours sincerely
Geoff Fahey and Debbie Kershaw
Apology.
This email will appear on our blog. The previous email was lost to a computer crash before it was published
GF
Tuesday August 14th 3:50pm
No reply from Deborah Rees, editor of the Glamorgan Gazette. ( for explanation please read readers comments, especially the snatch response to 'amazed in Cwmfelin' in the comments section at the foot of this blog.)
Today we sent the following email to Fiona Blick and all the usual recipients. We apologise to our readers for the length of this mail. It is an attempt to provide a broader picture and to bring these events to a close.
The Snatch
August 14th 2007
Dear Mrs Blick
Another long letter I’m afraid. I bet I’m at least as fed up writing them as you are with reading them. We hope that this email will offer a broader more detailed view, and will serve to fill in any gaps for our readers. We also hope it will be instrumental in bringing a close to this ridiculous and costly (for us) dispute.
Our problems have arisen because although being told repeatedly, and from the outset by Wayne Sutton, previous Markets Manager, Nicola Watkins, surveyor (at our first traders meeting) and Paul Carter, the current markets manager that the Property Department was the landlord, it was their remit to provide a safe and clean environment and nothing else. This suited us just fine. We have however reported the fact that we have had to clean pigeon faeces from behind Unit 2 and are aware that Vernon the caretaker is regularly cleaning up pigeon faeces off the floor, and has just recently had to clean pigeon ‘muck’ off the bakery counter. As you read this there is a streak of pigeon faeces on one of the stalls that has been there for a month that I am aware of. The amount of pigeon faeces on top of the central stall, which is the favoured roost, must be considerable. There was a pigeon in the market only yesterday. We have reported this health hazard but nothing has been done about it. Many people who use the Market have chest problems, the valley is known for it, our daughter Charlotte has a mild chest complaint. Everybody knows that Pigeon Fanciers Lung (PFL) is a very real disease, yet nothing has been done to remedy this.
They are incidentally offering free blood tests to anyone with a suspect cough. A year ago we reported the three constantly running overflow pipes to Wayne Sutton. We have also made Paul Carter aware of the situation although there was little need as they are a difficult to miss. They have been running 24 hours per day for more than a year that I am aware of. Vernon Cox the caretaker advised me that they’d been running since he took up the job, four years ago. We estimate that possibly millions of gallons have run away over the years for no good reason other than someone in the Property Department did not think it worthy of attention. The gent’s toilet stinks, traders freeze in the winter because the electric doors (a much safer bet in keeping pigeons out) that were promised (email available upon request) have never happened. It seems that if it is within the remit of the Property Department you do nothing, but are ever keen to influence business that you are unqualified to do and by your own admission has nothing to do with you? We have been advised that this negligence and the furtive rules that apply to different traders in different ways is in fact maladministration and have re-engaged the services of the Ombudsman and will be forwarding him a copy of our lease agreement.
The fatuous logic being aired publicly (with our help) by the Property Department in attempting to define the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ is as we’ve said previously in a reply to a blogger like publicly attempting to validate gobbledygook. Furthermore the whole of BCBC is standing behind the view/policy of the Property Manager as if it made sense. We are all witnessing a scenario akin to an amalgamation of the Emperors New Clothes, the Popes prerogative and the Singing, Ringing Tree. A public display of Omnipotence, Infallibility and Unmissable Nonsense at it’s absolute finest.
A summary
June 2006. We entered Maesteg Market and began work on developing The Snatch.
July 2006. We began trading at The Snatch.
A week into our tenancy we were refused stools for our customers because Wayne Sutton said so. In his email (available upon request) of July 31st 2006 he assured us that we would not be permitted stools at the front of our unit. 2 weeks later…Wayne Sutton told me out of the corner of his mouth and with a furtive glance around and about “You can have stools”?
On September 2nd 2006 we received and read our lease agreement and were fully accepting of the content. We returned it to Wayne a couple of weeks later.
At some point, well into our tenancy Wayne asked us for an idea of what equipment we would be using and approximately where it would be sited. I think we may have been a bit slack in providing this information for no reason other than forgetfulness. There was no urgency attached to the request, the details were required so that the annual risk assessment by the Fire Brigade was up to date. Presumably the only reasons these details would be of interest. Please advise if there is another reason we are not aware of?
We persistently made verbal requests to both Wayne Sutton and Paul Carter (Market Managers, past and present) for reasons as to why we could not have tables and chairs for our customers. No satisfactory answer was ever given. Paul Carter the Markets Manager told us that if we were to take over the outdoor café we could then place tables and chairs where we chose. I put it to Paul that this seemed like an incredibly unfair way to run things. He replied with a shrug of the shoulders, a tilt of the head (to the left if my memory serves me correctly) and eyes skyward, he was holding his sheaf of papers to his chest at the time. I do not think we need a body language expert to define his actions, his picture painted more than a thousand words.
I said, “but what if Christine decides to work for another 10 years? His reply was the same.
Paul Carter approached Christine on our behalf to make enquiries as to whether or not she had any intention of giving up her business. My name was not brought in to it because Paul Carter told me that Christine thought I was the “devil’s spawn”, Paul Carter has denied ever saying this, but I will swear on an infinite stack of bibles and on the lives of every child on this land planet that he did, so that’ll be a stalemate then.
The comment was said in a joking sort of way, I do not believe for one moment that Christine had used those words herself, but took it that Paul was advising me that the enquiry was likely to bear more fruit if it came from him. Christine’s reply after a few days of deliberation was “I can’t let my customers down” which I took to mean she was staying.
.
Paul did the shrug thing.
April 07
We ran a petition To measure public support for our proposal, it wasn’t even our proposal at the end of the day, when all chairs and eating space is taken and people are prepared to stand to eat good organic food, the message is deafeningly loud and perfectly clear.
Every trader in the indoor market signed our petition and more than two thirds of traders and market workers overall. We collected the names of approx 500 members of the public on the petition in the first couple of weeks. I delivered these by hand to Mal Reeves at Huw Irranca-Davies’s office. We have not heard if Huw Irranca-Davies has received them yet. We have received not one, but two letters of support from the office of HRH The Prince of Wales. We would like to take this opportunity to thank His Royal Highness and our other supporters. We believe if put to the test we would receive more than 90% of public support for our proposal. We asked you how many names would be required on a petition before the situation would be reviewed? We have never received an answer.
We wished to do nothing but good for Maesteg Market, we are immersed in fine art and organic food for heavens sake, we’re hardly troublemakers? Yet we stand accused by you (Fiona Blick) for the Property Manager, and I quote “over the last couple of weeks your general behaviour within the market and in particular towards Council Officers and other Market Traders has deteriorated to the point of becoming completely unacceptable. This is impacting on the reputation of Maesteg Market and it’s attractiveness as a retailing outlet for shoppers, with potentially damaging impact on other existing stall holders businesses and the ability in the future of encouraging new tenants to occupy stalls within the market.” this statement is evidently complete and utter bunkum.
Our relationship with Paul Carter (Markets Manager) has always been good. The only meetings we have had with other Council Officers was with you, Andrea Evans (Legal) and Nicola Watkins (Surveyor). The Nicola Watkins “can I have a private word’ incident was witnessed by Phil Tew. Your visit to the market was witnessed by Paul Carter, traders and an ex independent councillor, who along with others sat very quietly at The Snatch and listened to our every word. I remember telling you that the people of Maesteg had been referring to the Council as a bunch of nobs and much worse, please believe me their actual comments were much, much worse. (Unprintable here, but available upon request). At this point Andrea Evans interjected with “Under the terms of your lease”…. I said, “we’ve done nothing wrong under the terms of our lease, why don’t you take us to court” she replied, “Do you want us to?” I said of course we do, this situation is outrageous.” You all left. The offer still stands. If you remember this incident any differently to this please advise us. You will no doubt remember the witnesses who were present at the time, and as we’ve mentioned previously you will undoubtedly have kept the CCTV evidence of the incident to support your claim. So which Council Officers or traders are we supposed to have behaved badly towards? And from whom do you continue to receive complaints against us? Was it Nicola Watkins who made her outrageous accusation behind closed doors? (and which Paul Carter denounced) Or was it you, or Andrea Evans who appeared to object to hearing public opinion, and who told us when we pointed out that we were being stopped from trading on a technicality, that it was all about technicalities. For the record we thought this was said with an air of smugness, how else could it have been said when we had made it perfectly clear that it was more accurately about our livelihoods. What has happened to us is being viewed by all as an incredibly naïve attempt at a smear campaign, fortunately for us, the 'incidents' on which it is based have been witnessed at every turn of the road never to have happened. At present it appears that BCBC officers can say what they want about anybody with absolute immunity. This is a very scary scenario indeed.
In order to offer the traders an opportunity to voice their opinion, (Nicola Watkins told me after the fact that I should not have approached traders to ask their opinions! Why not it’s a free country?) I had to ask them to read our proposal. When I asked Christine in the outdoor café if she would object to me having tables for my customers, she replied in front of Vernon Cox your caretaker, “You know I do you’ve been speaking to Paul.” (How did she know I’d been speaking to Paul? I had assumed that my conversation with Paul had been confidential.) I then said, “But Christine, it would be good for us all”. She put the flat of her right hand towards my face, ‘Catherine Tate style,’ and said, I’m not interested. The event was witnessed in full, and was the reason for Nicola Watkins accusing me of harassment for the first time. The second incident that involved Gill the hairdresser is legend (Details available upon request). This led to the second “can I have a private word” which resulted in the second harassment allegation and my demanding it in writing, so that I could deal with it, and also in us deciding that we would need to protect ourselves against this underhand and unprofessional approach. It was time to tell the public what was happening to us. We shouted out and are continuing to do so. Can you begin to imagine the stupidity of someone who would be causing all of this fuss if there were absolutely anything to hide? We feel we are being treated in an extremely shabby fashion, and are actively spreading the word far and wide in the hope that it isn’t allowed to happen again.
Receiving no sensible response to our queries in twelve months was the catalyst for resorting to a petition. The punishment we continue to receive for doing precisely nothing, other than speaking to other traders about their opinion, is frankly beyond our comprehension.
In Louise Fradd’s (Regeneration Directorate) letter of 30th May we were afforded the briefest of glimpse of the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’. due to the many anomalies in her letter we presumed that this was the ‘maiden outing’ of the confusing policy/view, no other trader or member of the public could make head nor tail of it. We await clarification to this day.
After a recent regeneration? meeting in the Council chamber I spoke with Cllr Bill May. He told me in front of an independent witness that Louise Fradd regretted being drawn into this fiasco, and seriously regretted having put here name to the letter we received from her office. I must comment that this would make sense, because prior to the meeting we were receiving emails from Louise Fradd that had a friendly tone. The post internal meeting letter we received instantly reduced my partner Debbie to tears, and made us all the more determined to out the truth. After the initial shock at the tone and highly contentious content of the letter, we had many people read it. It was considered nonsense by all and sundry and is still being passed around. Bill May also told me that Louise Fradd had made derogatory remarks about officers of the Property Department (When I asked which ones in particular? he replied, “All of them.”) the comments were along the lines of those made by the general public. (Precise quotation available upon request.) If this is true Louise Fradd, then it might be a good time to put your hand up. If I do not hear anything from you, I will return to Cllr. May for further clarification. In offering me this information I took it that Cllr. May was supportive of our cause and so asked, in view of the deafening silence emanating from all Councillors, how we could find out which Councillors were supporting us and who was standing against us? He said “that would be a very difficult thing to do.” Openness, courage of ones convictions, transparency, democratic process. Where’d it go?
It is the view of the vast majority that to stand against a sensible proposal such as ours is regressive and highly questionable behaviour. We have been unable to determine where Dr Jo Farrar (CEO) or Cheryl Green (Leader) stand on this most important matter, if they are not leading by example we can expect little more of their underlings.
So here we find ourselves today. Our livelihoods are under threat from a seemingly untouchable force. We stand accused of all manner of misdemeanours. My name has been blacked in the Glamorgan Gazette.
We are being made to look foolish on a daily basis as we struggle in restricted space to cope with the extra business we have encouraged into the market with our fine organic food and coffee.
It is ‘criminal’ to watch our regular customers come to The Snatch for a snack and coffee to turn away because there is nowhere for them to sit, to then come back later to find the same scene, and to finally walk out of the Market, clearly disappointed, and no doubt wondering if it will be worth even looking in the next time. We find ourselves in the ludicrous position of having our business damaged by our own popularity and the interference of Council officers unqualified to do so.
We have a runaway success on our hands, and it is becoming abundantly clear that somebody, somewhere doesn’t like it. We are telling friends, family, neighbours, colleagues and anyone else we can about our problems, no doubt you are doing the same. We would be interested to know what your neighbours, family and friends think about your actions? Our guess is, you're keeping it quiet.
Yours sincerely
Geoff Fahey and Debbie Kershaw
A copy of this email will be posted on our blog.
6:04pm
We sent the following email to the usual recipients, Huw Irranca-Davies MP, Peter Black AM, Dr Jo Farrar (CEO), Paul Carter (Markets Manager), Louise Fradd (Regeneration Director), Ian Aitken (Property Manager), Cheryl Green (Leader) Cllr Bob burns (Attached to Property Department), Linda Smith (Access) and Deborah Rees at the Gazette.
Dear Mrs Blick
We have been advised that we must ask you to internally review your decision not to disclose information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Yours sincerely
Geoff Fahey and Debbie Kershaw
Wednesday 15th August 9:45am
A lot of problems in Maesteg Market seem to be ignored. We are trying to establish what the Maesteg Market Traders are getting for their rent. Today we sent this letter to Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
The Snatch
15th August 2007
Hi Paul
Today we learned that The Property Department pay the Maintenance Department £56 to change a light bulb in Maesteg Market? We also learned that Maesteg Market traders pay the Property Department at BCBC approximately £75,000 per annum in rent.
This morning, with a customer timing the procedure, we measured one of the constantly running overflows in the market. It was leaking at a rate of 1 litre in 1minute and 45 seconds. We multiplied this by three for the number of overflows and divided the figure by 24 hours, this equates to 102.86 litres per hour or 2,468.57 litres per day over a year this equates to 901, 028.57 litres. In the past four years 3,604.114.29 litres of water have leaked away, in ten years it amounts to 9,010,285.71 wasted litres. These leaking overflows cannot be missed. We are not plumbers, but have never seen this set up before. Managers over the years will have queried this unusual set up, traders will have no doubt reported it as we did a year ago, so we must assume that everybody in the Property Department has been made aware of this waste, if waste it is? We would like the Property Department to assure us that it is not in fact a waste, but a proper plumbing configuration. We are also curious to know, that if it is in fact a fault, whether or not the loss is being reflected in the traders rents and if not, just who has been paying for it?
Regards
Geoff
A copy of this email will be published on our blog.
We noted that if the leaking water was metered the yearly cost would amount to £10689.48 Phew!
We received this prompt reply from Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
Geoff
As you are aware I have been dealing with the water board only last week we were looking down meter covers and identifying leaks. So far this year I have made significant savings in our water charges. All the main leaks outside have now been fixed (I am informed) I am hoping that the leaks in the building will be addressed next week.
Paul
9pm
We replied with the following email.
Hi Paul, Thanks for your prompt reply I was beginning to think people weren't receiving our emails. I was in no way aware that you had been dealing with the water board, how could I have been, we haven't seen you to speak to for weeks.
I detect a change in your tone, please do not take our email as a criticism of your ability to manage, we have always got on very well, and realise that you are only working to orders from above. Please accept that we feel as if we have been treated in an extremely shabby fashion, in no way have we associated you with this type of behaviour. I first reported the leak to Wayne Sutton a year ago and was just drawing attention to Property Department priorities. Well done on the significant savings, how much do they amount to? Good to hear we're moving along on the leaks business. What an amazing coincidence, it's been leaking for more than a decade now in all probability and we both thought about getting it fixed in the same week. Wow!
Thanks for dropping the market promotional stuff in, we’re a bit busy to distribute it yet though.
Kind regards
Geoff
ps. What about the pigeon poo?
pps. I think you may have left your copy of 'How to win friends and Influence people' around our house, we found it under the sofa next to your slippers....just a little joke.... like the old days eh?
Geoff xx
Thursday 16th August 5:22am
We sent this email to Paul Carter (Markets Manager)
Hi Paul
As we are presently looking at where our rent goes, and in view of the Property Departments wish to keep Fire risk details up to the minute, you’ll probably be interested in this… I came across an email to Wayne Sutton as I’ve been looking at all mail over the last year. There is one in particular that touched on the amount of debris that is stacked on top of the stalls. I pointed out that it was clearly visible, as you looked in from the front entrance of the Market it is unsightly and what is more a fire risk. Over the decades it has also undoubtedly been liberally splattered with pigeon poo. Apart from being a health hazard it contradicts the image portrayed by the promotional flyer you dropped in at The Snatch. We think potential visitors to Maesteg Market might think they’ve arrived at the wrong place, and will head straight off to the 'attractive little town of Bridgend' as it was described in the flyer. It is our guess that this is also a problem that was just about to be addressed.
We are keen to know what traders get for their rent, and were staggered to hear that the Property Department spends £56 (I’d do it all day for a tenner) to change a light bulb, is this true? In view of this we wondered what it costs the Property Department to clear the drains that regularly back-up because we are told they are collapsing. This situation can only get worse and apart from being extremely unpleasant and inconvenient for traders and customers (overflowing drains etc etc). When it happens it is surely a massive drain (pardon the pun) on resources to keep flushing it through instead of addressing the real issue, this action in itself I would imagine would further erode the crumbling drains? We are keen to know the ongoing cost of constant repairs over the years as opposed to facing the inevitable and getting the job done. The situation was likened by one of our customers to treating a haemophiliac with band-aids. We think this a potential health hazard if it is not already. What are the plans for the drains?
Kind regards
Geoff
Ps In reading over your previous emails we noticed a marked difference compared to the tone of the most recent one. You will be aware that we have told the truth and nothing but the truth always. At what point did I upset you? If upset you I have. If it was the devil’s spawn thing, it is of no consequence, I took it for what it was, a figure of speech to describe the frosty reception I might expect to receive from Christine were I to approach her directly. You were right.
Please speak open and freely in our forum. We have absolutely nothing to hide.
Gxx
A copy of this email will be published on our blog.
11:30am
The Snatch
16th August 2007
We have not received a reply from Fiona Blick. We do not know if she is receiving our emails, the last time she took leave (about 24th July) she advised us when she got back that she had not been receiving them. We requested her personal email address, as it is of utmost importance to us that we receive her prompt reply, but it has not been forthcoming. It is inconceivable to think that she would have taken leave yet again without appointing a deputy. What sort of person could sit on a beach or enjoy any holiday with the full knowledge that they were seriously affecting the quality of life of another family for absolutely no good reason?
There is an eerie silence. A thought has just occurred to us. Maybe all of BCBC take leave at the same time, in which case we apologise to our readers if the issue is beginning to sound a bit one sided. We would also like to extend our apologies to all recipients of our emails, if you are just returning back from leave we must have taken up a lot of your inbox. Sorry.
We do not know who is reading our mail.
Today we sent the following email to Fiona Blick and all of the usual recipients.
Dear Mrs Blick, are you now receiving our emails? For that matter, are any recipients receiving our emails? Please advise. A simple ‘Y’ will suffice.
Thank You.
Would a recipient of this email at BCBC please ensure that Fiona Blick receives it and kindly advise us that this has been done. Thank You.
12:15pm We have received a reply from Peter Black AM, to say he is receiving our emails. We have asked him where he stands on this matter?
Saturday 5th September 11:04am
Today we sent the following email to all of the usual recipients.
To whom it may concern:
The kids have gone back to school. It is as quiet as the grave. The ball lies motionless in BCBC’s court, yet nobody moves to pick it up, nobody is even acknowledging its existence, it may as well be a hot potato. It is common knowledge that testudinal activity is to be expected from BCBC, the exception being when money is due to them, but we detect no sense of urgency whatsoever from Angel Street,….. nothing. One old wag said “we wouldn’t know for some time if they’d all emigrated, but when the bulbs in the traffic lights failed and traffic flowed freely through Maesteg, it would become obvious that there was something positive afoot.
And the crowd looks on, hushed… watching……. waiting…,…. but nobody moves, not a twitch.
In my day in school, children discriminated against for any reason, e.g race, colour, Creed, shape, football team preference, sexual preference etc., etc. ad infinitum, would often be targeted for group punishment. The taunt of the day could be absolutely anything that took the fancy of the larger group e.g. ‘Nah nah nah nah nah we’re from Bridg-e-end, and yo-o-our not’ or ‘you’re to-oo fa-at ‘or ‘we do -on’t like you’ or ‘your face doesn’t fi-it’ or ‘we’re playing a ga-ame and you don’t know the ru-ules and we’re not going to tell you, so you lose every ti-ime, you ca-an’t wi-in so nah nah nah nah nah’, or ‘we’ve got a pla-an, that we haven’t told you about, so the-ere, and we’re much bigger than you-u and we can shout louder than yo-ou, because there are more of u-us, so we-ee-re sa-afe’. Sorry, I was just reminiscing there for a moment. Playground behaviour is where, however well monitored, our children learn that a larger organised group can and will make life a misery for a minority group; the playground is such a cruel place. Thank goodness the vast majority of adults leave infantile behaviour to the children in the knowledge that all but the least perceptive will grow out of it.
Back to the present. So why are BCBC playing the silence card? We do not know what to make of it. This silence is literally anybody’s guess. We are however comforted by the fact that in reporting BCBC’s refusal to answer our questions posed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and in our sending a copy of our tenancy agreement to the Ombudsman presumably that he may check for any reference to the ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ that is having such a devastating effect on our business, everything is now in place to ensure that we will receive the long awaited answers to our very straightforward questions… please continue to watch this space.
To recap. As chairman of Maesteg Market Traders I have been requesting information vital to the security of all traders for twelve months. I have three times requested this information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the first two instances we (My partner and I) were refused because our questions were referred to as queries, which did not require answers. Our third request, in which, under advice from the office of the Commissioner for Information, we asked which exemptions were applied to validate the Property Department of Bridgend County Borough Council’s refusal to supply the information requested, this has been met with a wall of silence from Dr Jo Farrar (CEO) and Cheryl Green (leader of the Council) down. We have asked that the decision to refuse information be internally reviewed, we have heard nothing.
The method and rules being applied to hold back our business and to punish us financially on a daily basis were not made clear at the outset and were certainly not mentioned in our Lease Agreement. It has frequently been made very clear to us, and to every other trader in Maesteg and Bridgend markets that the Property Department’s only remit is to provide a safe and clean environment for traders to work in. This is evidently not the case. Not only are the Property Department failing to provide a clean, safe environment, but also they have persistently blocked the natural expansion of our business for no valid reason whatsoever. The reasons given for denying us expansion to date are widely considered to be risible, with physical evidence to prove the Property Departments objections as nonsense. We believe that in order to validate Louise Fradd’s (Regeneration Director?) suggestion that the rule governing traders is an ‘unwritten policy not set in stone’ there must have been a meeting to decide that the policy was to be an ‘unwritten policy, not set in stone’ with safeguards in place to prevent traders falling foul of the nepotism and discrimination which many believe to be rife. Our main concern, as we have stated many times, is that the ‘unwritten policy not set in stone’ does not apply to all traders in the same way, with some traders enjoying the lucrative benefits of ‘same trader’ duplication’ which we have been denied, and ‘ancillary’ duplication which we are also denied. We have asked repeatedly how we may become eligible to enjoy these benefits but have never received an answer, the duplication club remains a very exclusive club. More baffling still, the fact that we were permitted to enter Maesteg market to trade in the first place precisely because we were not duplicating a trade. In view of the fact that we are proposing the only organic arts café for miles around, and that the food and original art we were proposing to offer could not have been found anywhere else in the world. We are concerned and in need of an explanation as to precisely when it was considered that we had begun to duplicate a trade, and who it was that considered that this was the case?
We are fearful that the massive defence being put up by the Property Department to prevent us from understanding the rules is precisely because there are no rules other than those made on an ad hoc basis by the Property manager or his officers, with no records being kept of such decisions, or why they were made. If this is the case it is a very worrying development indeed, and all traders must be made aware of the precarious nature of their investments and of the potentially devastating whims and power of the Property Manager.
As far as we have been able to establish there is no one in the Property Department who holds any qualification relating to small businesses, we feel this is clearly reflected in the highly questionable decisions emanating from that department.
Below is an example of our current restricted menu, the menu we would have liked to have offered over the past few months, and the menu on offer in the outdoor café. We do not expect anyone to take our word for the content of the menus, the proof of the pudding is as they say, in the eating.
Current restricted menu
Jacket potatoes. Served with chilli con carne, bolognaise and various other freshly made fillings.
Various salads. Served with new potatoes and various dressings. (Stopped due to popularity and lack of space to deal with demand)
Toast. A choice of white, wholemeal or granary served plain with welsh organic butter or various toppings.
Freshly made sandwiches. White, wholemeal or granary with various fillings.
Home made cake. Madeira, Coffee and walnut, Chocolate and various other cakes, made in the market with wholly organic ingredients.
Home made soups. Vary daily and include carrot and coriander, spinach and broccoli, leek and potato, vegetable, tomato, parsnip and apple etc etc
Beverages. Segafredo coffee, espresso, cappuccino, etc, etc.
Organic free trade tea.
Organic juices
Everything we serve is organic when available and is the finest on offer when it is not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A sample of the menu we had hoped to offer this summer before the Property Department saw fit to deny us access to unit 2. In denying us access the Property Department continues to cost us dearly on a daily basis.
All of the current restricted menu plus:
Roast salmon and prawn salad. Served on a bed of seasonal salad dressed with vinaigrette.
Greek meze salad. Houmous, olives, anchovies, tomatoes and stuffed vine leaves served with a dressed salad garnish
Various tapas. Including Crayfish tails with feta and olives,
chorizo and pork skewers, char grilled aubergine etc etc.
Cous cous. Made with fragrant spices and various accompaniments.
Slow cooked Mediterranean beef. Local beef cooked in Provencal sauce served with salad and a baguette.
Moroccan lamb tagine. Cooked with aubergine, apricots and fragrant spices served with wild rice and seasonal salad.
Chilli con carne. Made with locally reared Welsh beef and served with long grain rice sour cream, fresh coriander and nachos.
Welsh Cawl. Made using locally reared organic lamb, served with fresh local organic vegetables and mashed potatoes with chives and cream.
Homemade soups As above
Organic juices.
Organic fruit smoothies.
Various sweet dishes.
Ice Cream.
Daily vegetarian option.
Beverages. Segafredo coffee, espresso, cappuccino, etc, etc.
Clipper organic free trade tea.
All of the above, and much more. We had also intended to cater for parties and will try to accommodate any reasonable request. The menu will change from day to day.
Everything we serve is organic when available, and is the finest on offer when it is not.
Outdoor café.
Fried breakfast.
Toast or chips. Sometimes freshly cooked.
Beverages. Instant coffee or tea.
Nothing served in the outdoor cafe is organic.
There is undoubtedly room for this type of café. However, for the Property Manager to insist on likening the fare on offer in the outdoor café with the freshly made organic food we are serving in The Snatch is ill informed at best.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also puzzled as to how the Property Manager, someone who is known to have visited Maesteg market only once in close on a decade, is insistent that we are duplicating trades, when duplication of trades is not permissible, yet physical evidence to the contrary abounds in both Maesteg and Bridgend markets. We are also concerned at the lengths officers in the Property Department are prepared to go to in order to prevent us from having access to, and therefore gaining an understanding of the rules that have a direct bearing on the livelihoods of all market traders? We are keen to know how the trader in the outdoor café has been able to prevent any trader opening another café, however diverse, in Maesteg market for twenty-three years?
Dr Jo Farrar (CEO), and Cheryl Green (Leader of the Council) have both been kept fully aware of the situation, we presume their silence means they are either taking an extended holiday, are avoiding any involvement, but don’t like to say so, or are currently upholding the view of the Property Manager, but don’t like to say so. Surely we should not have to guess where these people stand on this matter?
We have contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and are acting on their advice. We will now make an official complaint against BCBC for withholding information requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The ICO advised us that they have a backlog of two to three months before our case will be looked at. As we have already waited a year for satisfactory answers, we will take this unavoidable hiatus in our stride. We are aware that representatives from a number of legal establishments and the media are watching this blog because they have told us as much. We will use this lull in proceedings to broadcast our blog address far and wide, so that as many people as possible are party to the evasive tactics currently being employed by BCBC.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Kershaw and Geoff Fahey
A copy of this email has been published on our blog.
Thursday 13th September
Today we were told we would be allowed to trade in Unit 2. Thank you for your continuing support, we will keep you updated.
This blog is now closed. We have moved to 'The Llynfi Valley Debate'
posted by geoff at 10:42 on 01-Jul-2007
New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator.
