Forum Topic

Perils of proposed Street Food Market

Re the monthly Food Market application, I have just received Panel Pack agenda for the Licensing Sub-committee for the 22nd August 2023.  See below:https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=13009&x=1Haven’t read it all yet.  But already note on the licence application – see link below – https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s185819/Food%20St.%20-%20Appendix%20A.pdf where it says “It is a requirement to provide evidence on how you intend to remove trade waste from the site”– the answer given by applicant simply says: “Traders will remove all their rubbish at the end of the market.”The form then states: “It is a requirement to provide evidence on how you will transport fresh water to the site and how you intend to dispose of the waste water. Please state details here:  Answer given by applicant just says: “Traders will bring the water they need to the site and remove any waste water when they leave.”And so it goes on.  In other words the applicant is taking no responsibility and is providing no evidence of assured maintenance of hygiene standards were this market to go ahead. So the bit of fun offered by a monthly variety of snacks on sale would have many hugely negative repercussions. Not only would the food street market pose absolutely unfair and damaging competition to the many established food traders who pay very high costs to be on Chiswick High Road and who are already suffering extremely difficult trading conditions.  The significant litter and detritus from the proposed Food Market would be incredibly deleterious to the area.For these reasons I hope the licence application is turned down.

Rae Lewis ● 642d60 Comments

Hi Anette,Thanks for providing some clarification on the six-month figures. In fact the fourth column was cut off in your submission so the information you are now giving was not available from that column header.  Your previous column headers included the weeks averaged, confirming you had used 14 non-market Sundays in 11 months of data, (although you had then erroneously averaged by 11) so it was quite a reasonable assumption that you had been consistent here. You previously, but incorrectly, suggested that you made most sales on non-market days, so why not include all non-market days in your latest analysis?And the larger question remains why are you now  basing your analysis on just 24 weeks of data rather than the 47 weeks in the original dataset, and on what basis did you chose which weeks to include? Selecting a smaller sample when you have a larger sample available is only going to make it more likely you’ll get unrepresentative results, as well as raise questions as to potential bias in your selection. And of course it won’t capture the seasonal changes that I’m sure have an effect on your sales.For example, on the basis of your original 47-week figures you suggested that your lowest sales when there was a Cheese Market were down to it selling food.  That’s a plausible suggestion, but your new figures for just 24 weeks show that your sales were higher on Cheese market Sundays than for the Flower or Antiques market.  I don’t think that really proves your initial suggestion was wrong, just that a smaller sample is less reliable. Similarly, your original 47 weeks of sales, when correctly analyses, showed that non-market Sundays gave you the worst sales. A smaller sample might well show the opposite, especially if there was a biased selection, but it doesn’t undermine the analysis of the larger, more reliable, dataset.And of course if sales were higher on your selected non-market Sundays, they would have to be lower, much lower in this case, for the other eight weeks you didn’t select (if you had been consistent and included any fifth Sundays the variation is much less). What makes those eight weeks not chosen any less valid that the six you decided to choose?In the end a larger dataset will always be preferable to a smaller one, giving more reliable results, unless you have some good reasons to exclude some of the data.

Tom Pike ● 639d

Good Afternoon,  I would like to take this opportunity to address my seemed “inability to read and calculate numbers” as reported by some on the forum, regarding the evidence on Sunday trade:“They’ve now supplied just six months of data, but made just the same error, calculating on the basis of 7 non-market Sundays when any six-month period has at least 8. In this more limited period covers are still higher on market Sundays, and sales are less than 1% different. This period was likely selected to make the strongest claim of damage - in the other six months sales would have been well up on market Sundays"I reported clearly the numbers based on 6 months of trade, if you were so kind to look at the headers on each column, you would see them labelled:• Flower 1st Sunday • Vintage 2nd Sunday• Cheese 3rd Sunday• ( no market) Sunday after cheese market 4th SundaySurprisingly enough it seems there is only one of each of these per calendar month, however there is 5th Sunday on some months as astutely noted in earlier comments  – this is not included in calculation the Sunday in question is the 4th Sunday that the debate is about. For simplicity and not to be confusing the data was indeed supplied on below bases:6 x 1st  Sunday 6 x 2nd Sunday 6 x 3rd Sunday And yes you have guessed it …6x 4th Sunday There is no  5th Sunday in any division and subtraction formulas as these are not included.  Please do not make and publicise incorrect assumptions, prior asking for validation.What is actually very simple data collection has be turned in to misinformation by some. Please PM me if you wish to have a sit down conversation and I will more than happily be willing to go through numbers with you and clearly show that the data is indeed for 6 Sunday across all the market data.Thank you for your time.

Anette Megyaszai ● 639d

Jeremy, the proprietor has already shown the data for 11 months of sales and although the spreadsheet quite clearly showed there were 14 weeks of non-market sales, they simply divided by 11 instead of 14 to get the non-market average.  That's hardly "a complicated exposition on statistics", just dividing by the wrong number. Their data is clear -  their sales and covers are up on market days.They've now down-selected to just six months of data to try to re-establish their point. The strange thing is that while their total sales on market Sundays remain similar, as they were before, now sales on non-market Sundays are very significantly higher. Of course if you select the best non-market months in a year, you can tip the scales in their favour, but it doesn't prove much. After all, the unselected months must have had much lower sales to compensate - in fact sales in those months would be nearly half in this case!"You are happy to accept without question evidence from the businesses who say takings are up so you should do the same for those who have had a different experience."Quite the opposite! For example, I've looked at data from business owners who had rather different views on the parking on TGT. One was certain the removal hurt their business, the other was agnostic. In fact both their year-on-year volume and sales changes agreed very well and showed no effect from the removal. But the business owner who was certain remained so, even though the evidence quite clearly showed otherwise.It does seem odd that a proprietor can be convinced that their sales are being hurt when the actual sales numbers indicate the opposite, but clearly it does happen.

Tom Pike ● 641d

I've never really understood the heat generated by the name Old Market Place and why, otherwise sensible people, have such strong objections to it.Tom, I've looked at the data presented by the restaurant and it does show a negative relationship between their Sunday takings and markets. Ultimately people will probably have already decided who is right on this matter, you with your complicated exposition on the statistics or the owner looking at empty tables and her takings for the day.This doesn't of course prove the existing markets are bad for business. Overall, I think there is a consensus that for most traders the increased footfall outweighs the loss of the car parking. However, how this affects individual businesses will be complex including many factors such as weather, location and the type of product sold. Looking at the feedback, when it comes to food businesses, in general cafes seem to like the idea of the foodmarket and restaurants are very much opposed.  You are happy to accept without question evidence from the businesses who say takings are up so you should do the same for those who have had a different experience.Having now gone through the comments, I would disagree that the objectors' file is larger because they have followed Cllr Biddolph's prolixity. There are a substantial proportion of well-argued detailed objections on a number of grounds including from the local residents' association, a chartitable trust and several businesses. While the supporters also have marshalled some strong arguments in favour, quite a few of the comments are short, even one liners expressing support from the market. I don't think you can come to any other conclusion than Chiswick is very much split on this issue. As I understand it this isn't a referendum so the number of people for or against is a secondary factor. The panel has to decide on the basis of the relevant legislation. I have to confess to close to zero knowledge on this subject but, if you sift through Cllr Biddolph's long objection, there do seem to me to be a number of technical objections there which appear to be based on a detailed knowledge of the subject

Jeremy Parkinson ● 641d