Appleby Fair Communities Group

03/07/2026

25/06/2026

THE APPLEBY FAIR MARKET FIELD – HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS NEED TO BE RAISED?

For years, residents have raised concerns about the Market Field.

Concerns have included:
• The size and growth of the market.
• Whether it attracts people with no connection to the Fair.
• Potential links to crime, money laundering & modern slavery
• Concerns about the sale of counterfeit and poor-quality goods.
• Whether the market benefits the town or takes trade away from it.

These concerns are not new.

At public meetings, residents questioned whether the market should be reduced in size, whether the planning permission should be reviewed, and whether more could be done to support local businesses instead.

The response has consistently been that the Market Field has planning permission, that the process of changing it would be difficult, lengthy and costly, and that issues are being discussed with planning officers.

Residents were also told that concerns about counterfeit goods fall to Trading Standards and that officers had attended the Fair.

But this raises an important question.

If concerns continue to be raised year after year, if authorities say they do not have the resources, powers or ability to effectively deal with the issues, and if the answer is always that they are "speaking to" the Market Manager or "looking into" the planning position, “gathering evidence”, then at what point do we ask whether the market has simply become too large to manage effectively?

A market that generates significant income should also come with effective oversight, enforcement and accountability.

Many residents remember a Fair where local businesses, local people and the travelling community interacted more closely.

Perhaps the real discussion should not be whether concerns exist—they clearly do.

The discussion should be whether the current scale of the Market Field is delivering the best outcome for Appleby, local businesses, and the Gypsy and Traveller communities whose event the Fair ultimately exists to serve.

If the authorities genuinely cannot resource the issues being raised, then perhaps the size and operation of the Market Field needs to be part of the conversation.

What do you think?

25/06/2026

What we questioned was whether it is increasingly being treated like one, and whether that is driving the growing number of checks, restrictions and commercial activities.
Our concern was that the event appears to be moving towards a more festival-style model, with more opportunities to generate revenue and more infrastructure being put in place to support that. That naturally raises questions about where things are heading in the future.
The real question is what people want the event to be. Do they want it to remain a traditional fair with its unique character and heritage, or do they want it to evolve into something that looks and operates more like a modern festival taking place alongside a living town?

23/06/2026

When residents raised concerns about caravan spacing, site layout and potential fire risks at Fair Hill, we were told that these matters would be discussed with the Fire Service and Environmental Health team.

The meeting minutes record:

"Steph Cordon agreed to discuss these concerns with the Fire Service and Environmental Health team."

Residents were not raising these issues to criticise the Fair or any community. They were raising them because safety matters.

Unfortunately, despite those concerns being raised and discussed, there appears to have been little visible change. It is therefore reasonable to ask what action was taken, what recommendations were made, and whether any improvements were implemented.

Everyone attending the Fair deserves to be safe. This is an issue we have repeatedly raised.

We have always maintained that these concerns are about protecting people. Good fire safety, clear site planning and proper oversight benefit residents, visitors, traders and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families alike.

Safety should never be a divisive issue. It should be something we all work together to improve.

22/06/2026

On 9 June 2026, Bill Lloyd stated that Fair Hill is "lucky to make 200 caravans".

However, official figures presented by Cumbria Constabulary recorded 405 caravans in 2023 and 358 caravans in 2024. The attached aerial images from 2025 and 2026 also appear to show significantly higher numbers than 200, although these are AI-assisted estimates rather than official counts.

I'm not making any accusations. I'm simply asking a reasonable question:

If the official figures were 405 in 2023 and 358 in 2024, why was Fair Hill described as being "lucky to make 200 caravans"?

If there's an explanation for the difference, I'm sure many people would be interested to hear it.

21/06/2026

We have been made aware of a post circulating social media where we have been mentioned, we wanted to clear up our position.

Many of the points raised are not really questions at all. They are allegations or assumptions presented as questions. If transparency is genuinely the aim, then the same standards should be applied to everyone involved in the fair, regardless of which side of a debate they happen to be on.

I also note that the original poster uses an alias so likely just someone stirring the pot. For the first time in years “Tommy Smith” residents and representatives from both communities have been able to have sensible conversations. Something not possible in the current regime!

To address a few specific points:

7. No, nobody is being paid by our group to cause division amongst anyone. That allegation is completely untrue. No one is being paid at all.

8. It is also untrue that our group is anti-fair or wants the fair stopped. From day one, our membership questions have made it clear that if your aim is to ban the fair then our group is not for you. Like every group we do have people who would prefer to see an outright ban (along with those who love it), that’s no secret. Right now I can only see the calls to ban increasing. We have consistently argued for change, not cancellation. In fact, we have often said that if someone genuinely wanted to end the fair, the easiest thing to do would be sit back and allow issues to continue unchecked.

When presented with posts made by the author I often question if it would be easier to campaign for an outright ban! It probably would!

What we have increasingly questioned is whether people need to have an honest conversation about the future direction of the event. Is the aim to preserve a traditional fair, or is it becoming something a festival? As the event grows and changes, that is a reasonable discussion to have, and perhaps its decision time. Which is it going to be a traditional fair or a festival?

We have also questioned the financial side and the ever increasing cost to the local tax payer, the majority of don’t benefit and are more likely to be impacted negatively. But to be truthful not many visitors consider this and I question do they care?

9. The question of representation is a strange one. People join groups because they agree with their aims and leave when they no longer do. That applies to any organisation, committee, campaign group or association.

11. There have been repeated claims about people taking money from the fair and funding. The constitution of the Fair Hill Committee states that committee members shall receive no remuneration. At the same time, we have been told by the council that the Appleby Fair Hill Committee does not exist. These contradictions are precisely why people ask questions and seek transparency.

The bigger concern is should someone who has a financial incentive be allowed to have a role where they can influence the wider event?

Why shouldn’t the Fair be open to tender if someone else has a proposal it should be taken seriously. If Mr Welch is the best person he would win every time.

What’s so wrong with open conversations about what might be done better and questioning the current status quo? What’s wrong with trying to find middle ground and stop the sides mentality?

Ultimately, there is far too many of issues than can be understood from social media posts especially if you only visit for 3 days. People are entitled to disagree with us, but disagreement should be based on facts rather than assumptions about motives, secret payments, or attempts to discredit individuals instead of addressing the issues being raised.

I suggest you really look into all the ins and outs and then decide if you are really happy with the situation.