There is now a petition about the 'consultation'.
Politics by petition seems to be this pseudo-independent "politicians" way of doing business. She's clearly one of those here on dawlish.com who completely misunderstands the wording of the results of the consultation, and seeing as she was elected by little more than 20% of the Dawlish Central electorate, she's hardly in a position to talk about mandate. She has also implied that the consultation is flawed because full name and address details weren't given - what does her petition ask virtual signatories to provide? Oh!
Of course, if she gains 5,600+ signatures then fair enough. Presumably she will then campaign for a new bandstand that'll apparently attract lots of families to the Lawn all year round.
The online petition asks for a first name, a last name, an email address and a postcode.
(and before anyone says that these details could be made up - so equally, I imagine, could the same details have been made up by those participating in the consultation questionnaire).
As least we have a councillor trying to address the concerns of some of the electorate.
She's not addressing the concerns of the few, if she was she would be in actual direct dialogue with the District Council. This is, yet again, all about getting her name in the papers.
You yourself have entered into dialogue with councillors, albeit through the medium of the letters page of the Dawlish Gazette. I trust that you're satisfied with the robust response you received.
"I've got 99 problems..."
Mrs M, your mask is slipping.
@D. Mond. going off subject. You might think Cllr Clemens' response was robust. I thought he said exactly what I had expected him to say.
So you received answers to questions that you already knew the answers to? Seems like a waste of time in that case.
But others may well have been interested in the questions I asked and the answers that were given.
@Diani Mond - other than to say the Last public questionaire on the subject of the play park on The Lawn was in actual fact Teignbridge wide and not just Dawlish. There was no breakdown of the results by location and if you take the popualation of Teignbridge, no just dawlish, the results are painted in a totally different light.
As I have repeated so many times. You cannont have a questionaire and not have a question within it that enables people to say NO to what is being proposed. Neither can you just discard parts of the questionaire i.e. the comments for public viewing when they are so relevant to the subject in hand.
This site is for all to express their opinions, not to be persecuted for them.
Who's being persecuted? What a random thing to write.
To all those who have concerns about the format of the original questionnaire and how the answers to that format were subsequently used to argue for a playpark on the lawn.
Whilst I do not know, and am in no way involved in, the editorial decision of what gets published and what does not get published in the Gazette I feel pretty sure that the recent petition set up by Alison Foden may feature in this coming Wednesday's edition.
It is controversial.
So now might be the time for those who support the petition (and I presume who also therefore support the person who has set it up) to explain in their own words, via the Gazette's letters' page, just what it is that concerns them. I appreciate that writing a letter to a paper may come easier to some (cough, cough) than others but it is a way of getting concerns and information out to a much wider audience than just posting on this website.
If you do not wish to give your name and address on the letter ask the Gazette if they would just put 'name and address supplied' instead. I believe they sometimes do that.
Here are the contact details: email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Letters should be no more than about 300 words and must carry a postal address in all cases. Please include a daytime telephone number. Anonymous letters cannot be considered.
Deadline for receipt of letters to be published in this coming Wednesday's Gazette is usually around about noon on Monday.
It's up to 121 signatures now. 1% of the Dawlish population. No wonder she's gone begging to the Gazette for publicity!
Re your last sentence DM.
Do you have any proof to substantiate that allegation?
@D.Mond using your 1% of population figure - do you also thnk it fair that 100% of the population get that large chunk of the lawn taken away from them by a decision made from a survey of only approx 5% of the population?
(and before anyone bangs on about democracy it's also democracy that allows petitions if you don't agree with a decision made by your elected representatives)
Talk about being persecuted for having an opinion!
Lynne, it's not an allegation, it was whimsy. I know you're big mates with pseudo-independent Ms Foden, so I guess that's why you're so defensive of her.
Well that whimsy of yours (about AF going to the Gazette) could easily be interpreted as being a statement of fact.
And can you prove what you say about my being big mates with Alison Foden or is that yet another whimsy of yours?
From the terms and conditions of use of this website:
You agree, through your use of Dawlish.com, that you will not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
Maybe the best and safest place for the play park would be Sandy Lane. There are all the sporting facilities in that area e.g The skate park, Tennis courts, Football pitch, Astro turf, Bowling green and The leisure centre.
A nice big colourfull sign pointing people in that direction would help also you can park in the car park all day for £1.50 which has toilets.
I can understand the traders wanting the park on the lawn so people will spend money in the shops but most families do not have a lot of spare cash.
I did see quite a few people having their picnic in that area over the holidays and children trying to have fun in the play park with it's small amount of equipment also a lot of parents and their children head for the park after school.
I cannot prove what I am about to say (because I am not privy to town council emails) but I don't doubt for one moment that the proverbial manure has been/is/and will be hitting the fan because of this petition and most, if not all, of the manure will be going in the direction of Cllr Foden.
So......if you support the petition/have concerns etc about the original consultation it might be an idea to let the other town councillors know that you support Cllr Foden's efforts on your behalf.
If you click on the link below you will see how to contact all the town councillors. I'd suggest doing one email to all of them so that all of them get the same thing and none can say that they didn't get it.
(PS - to DM - no-one has asked me to post this).
It is quite clear from the response here, that it is very much undedcided and split between what should happen. So take it to a public poll I say, if Dawlish want's it they will turn up, if they don't they won't.
See today's Dawlish Gazette.
If you click on this link http://www.dawlish.gov.uk/edit/uploads/1968_2097641342.pdf you should be able to read the minutes of the town council's Civic Amenities Committee (CAC) meeting which was held on 15th June 2016.
Only 4 members of that committee were present - Cllrs Terry Lowther, Lisa Mayne, Linda Petherick and Rosalind Prowse. The 6 or so other members were absent for one reason or another (see the minutes for the reason(s) why).
So.......it was only 4 councillors that made the decision at that CAC meeting whether to recommend to the full town council whether or not a play park should be provided on the lawn.
Cllr Rosalind Prowse request a recorded vote:
Against the proposal - Terry Lowther and Rosalind Prowse
For the proposal - Linda Petherick and Lisa Mayne
Linda Petherick used her casting vote in favour of recommending to the full council that there should be a playpark on the lawn.
When is the full Council meeting taking place where the ultimate decision will be made?
Hhere are the minutes of the full council meeting held on 6th July last year when the play park issue was debated and voted on
and these minutes (see below) of the full council meeting held 14th July last year have more info (including why the playpark couldn't be built on the site of the piazza - it would cost too much).
and more minutes here from the full council meeting held 7th September 2017. There is a bit at the beginning from a member of the public but then scroll down to item 67 for the minute on the playpark
I have just read through the minutes of those three full council meetings and cannot find anywhere any minute with regard to recorded votes concerning the playpark. I therefore have no idea which councillors were in favour and which not. However, I see in the minutes of full council meeting held in September of last year that Cllr Terry Lowther had it minuted "that his personal opinion to the response to the public consultation was low".
According to those minutes there was a Council meeting on Wednesday 14th July, that timing is clearly wrong, does nobody check these things?
Anyway, the consultation was flawed, no doubt about that, and it will be a travesty if this park is built on the lawn.
I think the full council meeting on 14th July 2016 was an extra one.
As well as today's Gazette leading with this issue there is also a letter on page 10.
The letter raises some interesting points and ends with saying that Cllr Rosalind Prowse is trying to get TDC to conduct a paper ballot.
If you wish to express your thoughts to Cllr Prowse on what she is trying to achieve this is how you can do it:
by letter to her c/o The Manor House, Dawlish
or phone 01626 866621 (that phone number btw is in the public domain)
or email: email@example.com
Up to 290 signatures now. Maybe it’s just a slow burner?
Thanks for bumping this thread up to the top.
I actually predicted that you’d type that! :-)
Time to bump this up again - surely we can get this over 310 signatures???? After all, I’m sure that a solitary letter of support for Alison Foden in letters page of this weeks Gazette shouldn’t be taken as a gauge of residents feelings on this subject... ;-)
Lynne I will bump this back to the top again.
I appears to me that many, not only on this topic but others in general are dissatisfied with many of our town councillors and I certainly agree as many are as useless as a chocolate fire guard.
However, all counciillors are voted into office by the electorate or co-opted onto the council because of (to my mind) there are vacancies through not enough stand for a seat or when those that were elected decided quite soon that it was not the job for them..
The question is:- Who is it that votes these people onto the council and more importantly why do they vote them on?
Do you want a list of names and their reasons? This may take some time...
No , just a general reason. Besides, how would you know who voted for who and what would have been their reason for doing so? If you voted for someone, unless you told someone else why you voted for that person, how would anyone know and the reason why you did it?
Don't tell me there is a psychic living in Dawlish and your crystal ball needs a bit of a polish before it can give you an answer.
I prefer to use tea leaves...
Trouble is with tea leaves, you get a different pattern in every cup.
Does anyone know if spinning tea cups are a feature of the proposed playpark?
Dunno about that, but I heard once along time ago that Mystic Megg was being called into help design it.
I say put the new playpark on the existing site in the Manor Gardens and extend its footprint. Make it special and a real challenge to Teignmouth's offer.
The existing one, on the Manor, owned by TDC, has been sadly neglected and fallen into disrepair. It is only suitable for very young children right now. But the site is perfect as there is space to expand and plenty of open space for kids to run and play.
A garish playpark on the Lawn would be a white elephant, ruin it, and bring no appreciable financial benefit to the town.
In your opinion, Flower.
That's the whole point of this forum, Mrs C, for people to express their opinion. Do keep up.
Absolutely right Burneside. But it’s always worth pointing out when people state opinions as facts. Thanks for your input nonetheless.
No, Mrs C, Flower was merely expressing their opinion. Do try to keep up.
Thank you Burnside. I did write 'I say' so that does indicate it is my opinion.
I was just looking at the Open Daw website and noticed that the town centre manager is there every Friday between 10-12noon.
Thought to put that information on this thread as she was/is such a driving force behind there being a playpark on the lawn.
So..........might be an opportunity for those with concerns about last year's consultation to go and ask her about it.
That's been done Lynne, I tried but just got shrugged shoulders and an 'I did what I was asked to'
Who asked her to do what she did?
The Town Council? after all it was the town council that agreed the three questions.(although I believe not all councillors were in favour).
At the Civic Amenities Committee (CAC) meeting held in June 2016 the report concerning, and recommedation by, the town centre manager concerning there being a playpark on the lawn was on the agenda.
The recommendation was that CAC should recommend to full councill that there should be a playpark on the lawn.
There were only 4 members of that CAC committee present - Linda Petherick, Lisa Mayne, Rosalind Prowse and Terry Lowther. All the other members had sent their apologies for absence.
So.......four members only were to decide on the recommendation from the town centre manager.
Rosalind Prowse asked for a recorded vote.
Rosalind Prowse and Terry Lowther voted against.
Linda Petherick and Lisa Mayne voted for.
As LP was the vice-chair at the time of CAC she used her casting vote in favour - hence the recommendation from CAC to the town council that it (the town council) should agree that there should be a playpark on the lawn.
This item was duly on the agenda of the full town council meeting held 6th July 2016. However, somehow or the other it was agreed that as well as an option of it being on the lawn there should also be an option that it should be in the manor park. However, how.ev.er. this other option was not what those in support of the playpark on the lawn wanted and another full council meeting was called for 14th July. It was at this meeting that the option for the playpark to be in the manor grounds was rescinded and the three questions only concerning the lawn and the playpark were agreed by the town council.
Other than the CAC meeting none of the votes were recorded so I have no idea who voted for and against although of course for the questions to be agreed it would have been by a majority of the councillors present.
What is a quorum?
And did four members meet the requirement?
The same thought had gone through my mind but I assumed the CAC meeting was quorate otherwise how could it have made any valid recommendation to the full council.
A small but important point of order that may help people put context to the sentence “...the other option was not what those in support of the playpark on the Lawn wanted”. The option of the playpark being on the Manor Park was rescinded by the full Council when it was realised that there would not be any funding available for it to be located there.
A further small but important point of order is that I understand not all of the councillors present voted for the Manor Gardens option to be rescinded.
And if the Lawn option had funding then how come at a recent Finance and General Purposes (F&GP) committee meeting how a playpark on the lawn might be funded was on the agenda?
"Members agreed that funding should be secured first as there would be no point progressing further with the project only to discover at a later date that funding could not be obtained"
(F&GP minutes 20.7.17 meeting)
As you know, the CAC has no budget and all decisions have to be authorised by the F&GP Committee anyway. Six members of the CAC also sit on the F&GP Committee so there is a 8 duplication of effort with matters being discussed first at CAC and then again at F&GP Committee by mainly the same councillors.
Just about sums up the stupidity of the Council!
And all from guidance from the clerk
The play park on The Lawn fiasco needs investigating by an independant body so that the ethics involved in this shambles can be made clear to the residents of Dawlish.
It is not the first time a large amount of money has been spent before the Dawlish residents were informed what was actually being formulated i.e. The Manor House, The Termite - in my opinion. written without prejudice, e&e.o, etc, etc.
What do you mean by “what was actually being formulated”? The plans are open for all to see, and either be in favour of or against.
Sorry but you’re wrong. I was merely trying to provoke a sensible answer to what I thought was a sensible question. I’m happy to be corrected and for the intended context to be explained to me, but that’s up to you of course.
It wasn't that many years ago that the idea of pulling down and replacing the bandstand was scuppered by the Environment Agency saying that they would object to it because it's in a flood plain.
Has that changed? Or are our Councillors so set on this idea that they haven't thought it through.......
There is an article about the proposed playpark on page 6 of this week's Dawlish Gazette.
At the end it says " Anyone wanting more information or to give an opinion on what would be preferred can email Mrs Scranage (the town centre development manager) at firstname.lastname@example.org"
This has been posted by David Force on Facebook:
The top end of the lawn is very close to Force & Sons and some of the other estate agents. Me thinks there could be an ulterior motive about the site of the suggested play park. What part does Mr force play on the local chamber of commerce?
David Force used to be the chairman of the Chamber of Trade. What ulterior motive could there be?
So, it's going to be a squidgy little play park, nothing like the size of the Teignmouth and Paignton play parks, so why would people come to Dawlish to use a watered down version of the other play parks? Why can't we be creative and inventive and offer something different and better? Why do we feel the need to copy the other towns?
Foot fall is the ulterior motive. The more people that visits the top end of the lawn, the more people are likely to visit shops and that end.
That’s not an ulterior motive - that’s one of the very overt motives for its location. To make it easily accessible for increasing footfall for all town centre businesses. Nobody has ever denied that.
But if you have kids aged 8 and under you are not going to leave them to visit the shops and definitely not to visit the eatste agents!! And it is unlikely you will drag them round the shops instead of allowing them to play in this amazing watered down play park!
Why do these shop keepers think they are going to have masses of people surging through their shops because we get a watered down version of the play parks in Teignmouth and Paignton? They need to get real and realise that in Teignmouth they don't just have the playpark, they also have an interesting crazy golf course, the pier and lots of places to buy ice creams and cola! Paignton goes one step further as their play park is surround by huge family centred pubs selling cheap food and cheap drinks, which is what families tend to want, as well as a pier and plenty of places selling ice cream and cola!
Have been told that latest proposals for the playpark will be in this coming Weds Gazette and will also be on the town council's website sometime soon.
what makes everyone think that a playpark will boost the trade in the town, as @Margaret Swift quite rightfully as said, your not going to leave the children unattened and go for your weekly shop now are you! it makes no sense that shop keepers feel that a playpark will increase thier income. what about the sheer amount of anti-social behaviour that goes with playparks, drunks at night, the condoms and needles currently being picked up from the manor playpark, i agree dawlish could do wiht a great playpark, but in my opinion, forget the crazy golf and build a great playpark facility down that end of town.
The crazy golf facility is an income generator for TDC so I would say the likliehood of the crazy golf area being given up by TDC for a non income generating play park is about ........zilch.
There is presently a planning app in for redevelopment of the crazy golf area by a private operator. They will lease the area from TDC. http://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/45762
There is indeed an application in, but they also want to add a Cafe to it! Why! Does Dawlish not have enough Cafes, we could be a Charity Shop there aswell.
I see that someone has signed the petition at least twice! Once very recently!
Even with the fraudulent signatures, Alison Foden is only at 4% of the Dawlish population. How long has she got until this is decided one way or the other?
@Diana Mond - it will be decided when the people of dawlish have a questionaire on the subject that is not totally loaded to having a play park on The Lawn, with no way ,other than in the comments section, of saying no to a play park on the lawn.
This whole project has been railroaded past the Dawlish people. It seems when ever large sums of money are involved, those representing us, seem to get lightheaded and have to spend no matter the consequences to the town.
How much have we paid off the loan that was used to buy the alternative for the Manor House fiasco.. not a lot I would imagine. What about the £27k spent on the Termite that was never built! How much has the council spent so far on this farcical play park project to date?
Where are the comment sections of the last dodgey questionaire and why were they not available to the residents of Dawlish to view.....I think we all know why.
On the issue of last year's information/consultation project.
The latest playpark design (which should be in the Gaz tomorrow) is smaller than the design that was shown to the public last year and therefore it doesn't have the space or the facilities that the public were originally shown and asked to vote on.
Well, we need another vote on the current proposals. How do we go about organising that?
See today's Gazette
and see below the wording of the petition FOR there to be a playpark on the lawn. Note its claims, amongst other things, about 77% of Dawlish residents, the size of the playground that should be built, and the claim that such a playground would add to the town centre economy.
"The Lawn in Dawlish IS the place for a new play-park in the town centre. The Lawn is a green space that is one of the jewels of the town, but it also has a wasted bit of land between the bandstand and bowling green (where most of the old people play a few times a month!!!) and are not currently enjoyed by the local YOUNG residents, their children and visitors alike. All of which bring in and will continue to bring in much needed revenue to the local shops and cafes and are so important to Dawlish's future (long after the rest of us older ones meet our maker!)
This IS the place for a new play-park to be built if Dawlish wants to compete with Teignmouth for much needed visitors and revenue!
So please vote and share!
Why is this important?
In July and August 2016 the Teignmouth and Dawlish Community Interest Company asked people in the street in Dawlish questions about plans to build a play park on The Lawn in Dawlish. (The idea is to build a park large enough to compete with the one in Teignmouth to bring more trade into town!).
The “consultation” concluded that 77% of Dawlish residents voted in favour of a play park on the Lawn, calculated from the results of 680 completed consultation questionnaires.
However it would seem that not enough old people were asked about it and as such the minority would like Teignbridge District Council to reconsider!
We, the undersigned, wish to record our absolute support for the proposal to build a play park covering the whole of the back Lawn in Dawlish and the sooner the better!"
How on earth will building an overpriced 'micro' playpark on The Lawn possibly attain the results of increased revenue and footfall.
It would be better to give the shop owner's in Dawlish a share of the £200K - £260K that is to be spent building this white elephant so that they then have their increased revenue and The Lawn is left alone, a win - win in my book and no money is then needed to maintain/repair it in future.
The shop keeper's will be happy for the extra money, most probably a lot more than they would recieve from the play park build over many years. While the lazy parents can get some exercise by waddling to the play park near the Manor House.
Fascinating, the ideas some people seem to have about how to carry out a 'consultation'. I've got it, Humphrey, let's go and ask some people who are already in the main streets of Dawlish whether a new 'play park' would encourage them to visit Dawlish ! Yes, Prime Minister !
The originator of this petition does seem have a bee in his bonnet about "old people".
To spend around quarter of a million pounds on a 2nd play park based on a flawed petition by the town council is not good.
Who do these town councillors think they are to go ahead with this proposal when the town is spiralling ever downwards due to lack of basic maintenance.
So sad for the Dawlish residents and the town in general.
Not as sad as your username.
Those of you who may be inclined to sign the petition in favour of the playpark on the Lawn, can do so here:
I for one will not be signing for a play park in that location. So I think 239 votes so far is a good indication it will not go much further.
These petitions are completely worthless, anybody can sign them numerous times under false names. Anyone who thinks such a petiton actually sways a decision is deluded.
I notice there is no correspondence from the town council in today's Gazette in response to the letter in last week's paper querying the figures that had been (still are being) banded about by some concerning last year's consultation.
The petition in favour has been going for a third of the time of the original one by Cllr Foden. And hasn’t had any of the publicity in the local rag that hers has had (not seen this weeks edition yet, so I’m assuming that they’ve ignored it).
Of course there won't be Lynne. You don't expect our Conservative led Council to actually read the Gazette or connect with their constituents?
(And I say this as a former Tory)
At least the Lib Dems (usually inaffective) and the Independents are trying to think for themselves at the moment.
Interestingly I heard the other day that the Clerk has resigned.
Yes I've heard the same thing (about the Clerk having resigned - there was a Part II (ie in private) discussion about staff vacancies at the last town council meeting. )
Although I've also heard that she is retiring.
But same outcome.
Yes, I saw the Part II thing.
What interesting times we live in.....
When I logged on this morning I found myself in receipt of a roundrobin email asking me to sign the petition FOR their being a playpark on the lawn.
Here's how I responded:
@Lynne - i totally agree with you. if they spent the money on upgradinging the play park by the manor house they would have ample space to have an impressive play park.
To build on The Lawn in the hope of revenue for the retailers and additional footfall for Dawlish is a very immature act of people who are in denile of the true statistics of this project and the twisted non facts that have been generated by those who only have tunnel vision.
Is it really worth over £250,000,000 to desicrate The Lawn for an under 8's play park that will be used by a few people some of the year.
I cannot see parents coming to Dawlish for the play park on The Lawn and then taking the children with them while they go on a spending spree round the town.
What are those in charge of this project smoking? Can I have some please.
Came across this:-
Wouldn't this have resolved the issue of the play park on The Lawn. An indoor play area for up to 9 year olds, secure and safe.
I'm sure if it had got the funding and the new owners had taken note of the comments posted on Tripadvisor the play facility would have been a winner for the town. Maybe not the play park everyone was expecting, but the current metamorphosis of the plans for the new play park have somewhat shrunk from the original one that was publicised.
Also, the money destined for the new play park on The Lawn could be used for both an upgrade of the play park by the Manor House and the Monkey House lease renewal and refit. With the correct staff at the Monkey House the parents could take a quiet wander around the town knowing there little ones were enjoying themselves and safe.
As to the cost of the staff at the Monkey House this could be, in part, paid for by what would have been otherwise spent on maintenance/ repairs to the new play park on The Lawn.......just a thought.
It is now called the Funky Frogs playpad and as far as I am aware it is open for business.
Won't be long before we have a Citreon Diana
I hear that an ex-Councillor who was involved in a previous attempt to alter the Lawn is strongly supporting the proposed play park too. Some things never change.
Ex-councillors not being allowed to have an opinion about Dawlish? That would be ironic wouldn’t it?
Who is the ex-councillor? and of course everyones allowed an opinion, I'm agaisnt it, not a crime I hope. Like I've said multiple times, I'm not entirely agaisnt it on the whole, but I'm agaisnt where they propose to put it.
I just thought I'd have a look at the petition for the playpark and scrolled down to have a look at the comments. One of them was this;
I launched the proposals as a Town Councillor in 2013/4/5
Robert V. a day ago
@"Diana Mond" - Who said ex-Councillors are not allowed an opinion about Dawlish? I'm merely pointing out this particular ex-Councillor has form for wanting to change the lawn.
@The Observer - the ex-Councillor is Robert Vickery.
@“burneside” The Dawlish public also has form for wanting to change the Lawn.
Unlike Councillors, the public do not have access to Council Tax funds to satisfy a vanity project. I wonder how much the doomed woodlouse on the Lawn folly cost local taxpayers, before it was binned?
Yet the Dawlish public voted in favour of the pavilion on the Lawn, just like it has with the playpark. I also don’t know how much the project cost prior to the central funding being allocated to elsewhere. At least you don’t call it the Termite!
Jeez!!!!!!! How many more times!!!!!!
It was only circa 500 of the Dawlish public who chose to take part in last year's consultation that voted in favour of a play park on the lawn.
And remember that all the questions asked were concerned with their being a playpark on the lawn somewhere.
Calm down Lynne. We all know the numbers and we all know the outcome. How many of the Dawlish public voting in favour of it would be enough for you to accept the outcome?
A la Brexit A la Scottish independence. Irony alert.
There are two things that are annoying me about this.
1. How the figures were, and still are, being spun by some (for example 77% of the people in Dawlish voted for a playpark and/or the Dawlish public voted for their to be a playpark on the lawn).
Actually 77% of the just over 500 who answered the questionnare did so.
2. The absolutely fallacious argument that having a playppark on the lawn will boost the town centre takings.
And just for the record I am not bothered either way whether or not a playpark gets built on the lawn. But if it needs to be small enough to accommodate the Carnival marquee then I fear it will be a pig in a poke, but if it is larger than that it may well stop the carnival from taking place with the knock on reduction of footfall and potential business for the town centre shops, albeit for only the one week of the year.