Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 179)
TUESDAY 7 MARCH 2000
MR DAVID
LEWIS, MR
RICHARD NOBLE
AND MR
BARRIE TINKER
160. Is your local authority receptive to the
proposals for new fairs?
(Mr Noble) I feel it is. Over the last few years we
have had quite a few new fairs in Nottingham. I would say this
year we are looking to review the policy and consider whether
there are enough fairs now in Nottingham, particularly the smaller
ones, and whether the number of fairs is detracting from those
existing ones. That policy is under review at the moment.
161. Mr Tinker?
(Mr Tinker) As a council we are not opposed to new
fairs but we are, shall we say, customer driven. When it is proposed
that new fairs are put in in the parks or places where fairs have
not previously been, then we do meet some opposition.
162. You have resolutions, do you not, which
go back to 1986 which you have to adhere to one presumes?
(Mr Tinker) Yes, we do and we maintain those and stick
to those.
163. Those are not what one would describe as
being most beneficial as far as the attraction of new fairs is
concerned, are they?
(Mr Tinker) We have only provided one new fair.
164. Some of the restrictions you would think
are quite restrictive in terms of what you have: "no fairs
will be allowed to operate on a Sunday" for instance?
(Mr Tinker) Yes.
165. This has applied to privately run fairs
only. "Fairs incorporated within a larger event are able
to operate on Sundays".
(Mr Tinker) Yes.
166. There seems to be a contradiction in that
in itself. "No new nominated fairground sites will be available
in the Bradford Metropolitan District." This second resolution
has lost you forever your spring and autumn circuits of fairs,
a total of some 19 per annum. Is that a statement you would agree
with since it seems to be part of what you have as conditions?
(Mr Tinker) It is not a statement I would agree with
within the term I have been looking after fairs. That was something
I perceived happened before the present management structure took
over.
167. You think it is possible then that Bradford
will rescind that particular order?
(Mr Tinker) As far as the Sunday opening which we
are reviewing already or the number of fairs?
Chairman
168. Both?
(Mr Tinker) I would have to take that back because
we receive strong objections whenever we look to put new fairs
on new sites.
Mr Donohoe
169. By taking it back, would you be suggesting
that you write to us to indicate that you have rescinded that
as a condition?
(Mr Tinker) I will look at that and we will come back
to you.
170. Okay. Thanks. What would your reaction
be to the proposals for a formal appeals procedure against adverse
local authority decisions such as we have just heard?
(Mr Tinker) We think we have an appeals procedure
but it is purely a local one.
171. What is that then?
(Mr Tinker) It is part of a document whereby if a
fair operator wishes to hold fairs, it is discussed with ward
councillors, it goes to members, there is consultation with neighbourhood
forums and area panels. Then we take the results from those consultations
and make a decision on whether it is appropriate.
172. Is that appeal heard by different councillors
from the ones who take the decision?
(Mr Tinker) No, it would be held by the Leisure and
Heritage Executive Committee.
173. It would be the same councillors then who
would be looking at an appeal against themselves?
(Mr Tinker) They would be looking at an appeal but
the decision would have been made by officers, the appeal would
have been made by members of the public through local consultation.
Mr Cummings
174. Could you be more clear about that? We
are confused.
(Mr Tinker) Right. When applications are made for
fun fairs they are made to us as officers.
Mr Donohoe
175. So you take the decision?
(Mr Tinker) Yes.
176. It is not something that you go and see
a councillor about?
(Mr Tinker) Not at the moment because we are restricted
by the present policy and the number of fairs that they have on
the designated sites. If there was a body of opinion which came
to us and said "We think you should have a fair here"
177. What is the point of having an appeal in
these circumstances with that restriction, that is a milestone
around their neck? That is not giving you any flexibility at all.
As an officer you would want more flexibility, would you not?
You had better not answer that because as an ex NALGO official
I can tell you, you might get yourself in difficulty. I turn to
Notts, if I might, and just ask in exactly the same situation
would you be opposed to an appeals procedure?
(Mr Noble) I do not think I would be particularly
opposed to it. I do feel local members are better placed to consider
the needs of the locals in the community around it.
Chairman
178. There is a bias, is there not? It is quite
difficult as a ward councillor to tell the new housing estate
that has just been put on close to the site of a fair that they
have to put up with it because there will be 30 or 40 votes which
you may be quite keen to get and telling them bluntly that you
are not sympathetic is not easy. It is much easier either to blame
officials or to blame other councillors or simply to say "We
are not having the fair here, we like fairs but we do not want
them in our patch". Ought there not to be some mechanism
which balances up? Showmen often do not have a vote, groups of
people who use the fairs tend not to have votes, a lot of them
are young people, so is it not a bit weighted against the fair
by the way in which local people are going to be put out by it?
I do not think you heard my expression about the odd person puking
in your front garden, it is not something they are going to be
very keen on, is it?
(Mr Noble) I can understand that but I do not think
that Nottingham would look at one particular complaint or a couple
of complaints and how those outweighed the number of people who
go to the fair and enjoy it.
179. So the leader of the council does not have
a ward anywhere near the Goose Fair?
(Mr Noble) I could not answer that.
|