Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
TUESDAY 7 MARCH 2000
MR DAVID
LEWIS, MR
RICHARD NOBLE
AND MR
BARRIE TINKER
Mr Donohoe
180. When was the last time your council had
a reception for the Showmen's Guild or the showmen when they came
to town or had any dialogue of any description with the Guild?
(Mr Noble) We meet with the Guild on a regular basis
for the Goose Fair or a Committee of the Guild and for Nottingham
Goose Fair we always have a goose fair lunch to launch it and
the Guild are invited.
181. How about you in Thurrock?
(Mr Lewis) I am not familiar with the appeals process.
182. No, not the appeals process. I am asking
in terms of the last time that you had a reception or had any
delegation or had any discussion or dialogue with the Showmen's
Guild themselves?
(Mr Lewis) Not in my memory of the authority.
183. You have not had it. How about in good
old Bradford then? You have a reception every week!
(Mr Tinker) No we do not but I was at a civic reception
with Mr and Mrs Wright from W Marshall's Amusement not more than
12 months ago and that was tied in with the Bradford Festival.
We do meet with them on a regular basis.
184. You do meet them fairly regularly to discuss
the problems?
(Mr Tinker) Yes, we do.
185. So 1986 is maybe going to be the regulation
that will see a change soon, will it?
(Mr Tinker) It might do.
Mr Donohoe: It might do, that is a good answer
from you I tell you.
Chairman
186. Can I take you on, particularly Thurrock,
to this question of winter quarters. What happened at the South
Ockendon site, was that a bit of a problem?
(Mr Lewis) Yes, I think you are possibly referring
to the Wheatley Site, there is actually a much bigger expansion
that is occurring which is subsequent to that. The problems that
occur tend to be the conflict is created and, therefore, there
is the pressure to resolve that conflict and that often happens
through the appeal process regrettably. The sites within the borough
tend to be on green belt land where we have problems. Looking
at the circular where it points to criteria, it is very difficult
to find a site which would match the criteria, being on the urban
fringe but not in the green belt. I listened to the comments earlier
about the showmen's sites being very special circumstances, I
am not sure our authority would take that same stance of it being
special circumstances.
187. This planning application, was the council
late in determining the permission?
(Mr Lewis) It was late in determining the permission,
yes. It made a resolution that it would have refused a permission
had it not been for the appeal, primarily on the grounds of green
belt and the absence of identified need.
188. The inspector actually found against the
council, is that right?
(Mr Lewis) Correct, yes.
189. Did you get costs awarded against you?
(Mr Lewis) No.
190. How far was this cowardice on the part
of councillors and how far did the council really feel it was
on very good grounds? It is very tempting for the councillors
to say "We will say no because local people are against it.
We know we will be overturned when it goes to appeal and then
we can blame the Secretary of State and the inspector rather than
take the blame ourselves as a council".
(Mr Lewis) I do not think in this instance it was
cowardice. I think there were some other arguments relating to
the transfer of land from one side of the road to the other to
allow for former sites to be used for a golf course and therefore
the provision that had been identified was felt to be a balanced
provision. There was a technical argument that was probably lost
within the appeal. Thurrock believe very much also that having
identified the number of sites in the past that they have done
their bit, so to speak.
191. So Thurrock has done its bit, the neighbouring
authorities have not?
(Mr Lewis) That is correct, yes.
192. Would you like to name the neighbouring
authorities?
(Mr Lewis) The immediate adjoining authorities would
be Basildon, Brentwood, London Borough of Havering, south of the
river Dartford.
193. None of those has played the same role
as Thurrock, is that it?
(Mr Lewis) That is correct. There is not the same
identification of sites in those other areas at all.
194. What has the regional planning conference
said about sites?
(Mr Lewis) Not a lot to my knowledge.
195. Surely if Thurrock thinks it is being hard
done by is it not something you should try and insist goes into
a regional strategic plan?
(Mr Lewis) I think we would like to see it being tackled
more as a regional problem. I think there was a parallel to be
drawn with the legislation that sought to identify sites for gypsies
and travellers—if I can identify it like that—where
there was a greater understanding of the nature of the travellers
in the area, their general movement so a level of provision could
be made relative to those numbers. The same does not apply with
showmen. No-one I think can say "This is the nature of the
showmen community, this is where their ties are, this is the area
that ought to be catering for them", that does not seem to
exist for showmen.
196. But you do know how many shows there are
presumably within the area of those local authorities? Is it not
logical if you have so many shows then you need a certain amount
of quarters for them or do you always assume that the showmen
come from Berlin or from somewhere else?
(Mr Lewis) I think there is often a lack of wanting
to understand the size of the community. I think it is difficult
to understand just how many caravans may be attached to a particular
family at a particular site and the desire once a community are
there then to expand and the family staying with their community
does put pressure on existing sites to grow even bigger still.
That is the difficulty at Thurrock where there is a growing population
and the expectation is expansion within that same area.
197. There is an assumption, is there not, for
housing that there should be an expansion of housing to meet the
needs of the children of the existing people in the houses so
should there not be the same assumption as far as showmen are
concerned that there should be expansion at least to meet the
needs of their families, particularly since it appears to be a
traditional family business and very much passed on from one generation
to the next?
(Mr Lewis) That is a personal view that I share, that
should be the case. In identifying the new sites though it then
becomes a difficulty in saying "These are the new sites but
they can only be for these particular individuals" without
them being offered on the open market where there could be showmen
from the rest of the region and the rest of the country. Again,
it is identifying the local ties with that area to suggest that
these are Thurrock showmen, Essex showmen, South East showmen
or beyond.
198. How would you demonstrate that? Are you
expecting them to have a stamp on their back or something that
says "We come from Thurrock, Essex"?
(Mr Lewis) It is very difficult. It is adding human
rights issues in to it. It could be regarded as an invasion of
privacy and the same does not apply to the residential community
in houses. There is not a process where houses will only be occupied
by people who may have moved five miles to get there.
199. Circular 22/91, the Local Government Association
told us it needed bringing up to date and reinforcing. Would you
agree with that?
(Mr Lewis) Yes. I would like to see it certainly revamped,
if only to put it high on the agenda so that it is fresh in everyone's
minds yet again. As to the changes that could take place within
it, it is difficult to say. I indicated I perhaps disagree on
the showmen's sites being identified as very special circumstances
to have them on the green belt and there might need to be some
clarity or explanation to suggest there. The criteria that points
to urban fringe sites, there is always pressure on the urban fringe
for other competing uses and it is also more vulnerable in terms
of visual amenity quite often, so the potential for raising conflict
is even greater by pushing in that direction.
Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We
have given you the chance, if you like, to respond to the written
evidence that we have received, it seemed only fair. I notice
that you got your retaliation in with a written document, for
which we are very grateful. If either of you want to put in a
further comment about the evidence we have received, because we
are keen that the evidence is a dialogue, hopefully it will take
us forward to a situation where there are very attractive fairs
in Bradford and Nottingham in the future and you have sorted out
your problems with accommodation. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
| 
