The planning threats

Queen’s Market is already viable! More on the £200,000 ‘Capacity and Viability Study’

The long-term opportunities for the site referred to are going to be steered by the ‘Capacity and Viability Study’ which has a budget of £200,000 for outside consultants. At the height of the Coronavirus pandemic in 2021 the council launched public consultation for this study, setting out a choice of five “options” for the market’s future (see: https://newhamco-create.co.uk/en/projects/capacity-and-viability-study- queens-market-strategic-site)

The public were invited to choose (on the Council’s ‘co-create’ website) one of five options. Option A was ‘maintain only’ i.e the Council does all the maintenance work that you would expect of a good landlord but no alteration to existing stalls, shops and kiosks. Friends of Queen’s Market conducted a paper survey of non-internet users, which found an overwhelming preference for Option A ‘maintenance only’. The Council published an engagement report summarising the online consultation findings in July 2021. They acknowledged our paper survey but claimed there was ‘no overall preference’ for any of the options’. The Council promised that there would be ‘modelling’ on the five options. 

But instead of this, out of the blue, in December 2021 a cabinet report announced that only two options were going to be evaluated. They dropped the ‘maintenance only’ option and instead substituted two more – both involving further building on the site, clearly at the expense of existing structures. New Option A envisaged health centre, library, neighbourhood centre on ground floor and/or roof. Option B added youth centre, adult education centre and housing.

There was no question of the public being asked to choose between these two options: the ‘key stakeholders’ were to be informed and hopefully their views would be taken into account, though the co-create website does not promise this https://newhamco-create.co.uk/en/projects/queens-market-strategic-site/6.

The so-called consultation has denied people the option of rejecting further building on the site even though ‘maintain only’ was a popular option.

We believe the original consultation should not have taken place at such a challenging time. It was confused with the Good Growth consultation happening at the same time. It also DIGITALLY EXCLUDED many participants who don’t use phones or internet and it will not produce fair or comprehensive results.

Other dodgy bits of the Capacity and Viability Study:

• The £5.3 million Good Growth grant now available for the market could be a gross waste of public money, as the promised new floor and lighting could be be dug up and removed if some of the proposed changes are made.

• We believe major housing development does not sit well with street markets. Take the sorry-looking Rathbone Market in Canning Town as an example. Public uses would be more compatible.

• We think the usual narrow economic models will be used to ignore the value of the current market. Queen’s Market’s worth needs to be counted using progressive economics which focus on Community wealth building principles, and the social and health value the market brings.

Fake consultation: arbitrary choice of consultees for the ‘working group’

Right now the only people whose views the Council may or may not take into account are the ‘key stakeholders’. To be on the key stakeholder working group you have either to be a Queens Market trader or a ‘local resident’ either living within 100 meters of the market or between 100 and 400 metres of the market. We argued strongly that market shoppers should also be included but were told that ‘the process cannot be changed’. People who qualified as local residents put themselves forward, were interviewed by telephone and then were chosen or rejected with no reason given. We have no guarantee that the ‘local residents’ – one of whom appears to have been selected as late as April this year! – in any way represent the majority of market users or even local residents.