This chapter focuses on the Apollo Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue, and discusses the post-war history of West End and commercial theatre in Britain. It aims to consider the ways the commercial sector and its proprietors, producers, and productions, have been shaped by, and have responded to, the changing conditions of the industry in this period. Starting and mostly staying in one location – resolutely in the heart of London’s ‘Theatreland’ – creates a tight spatial focus in an industry which in many other ways is characterised by movement: of productions, artists, audiences, and influence. The chapter explores a long-running set of tensions between heritage and contemporaneity, culture and development, and artistic and commercial interests that have played out at both the Apollo and across the wider West End and commercial sector. It argues that the Apollo makes for a reasonably representative study of the wider history and trends in post-war commercial theatre. What emerges from its history is a picture of a sector that, despite extraordinary change in both the industry and the world in which it operates, has weathered or absorbed many of these changes and demonstrated continuity, sometimes surprising, sometimes troubling, sometimes remarkable.

‘Best Value’ has been defined as “securing continuous improvement in the exercise of all functions undertaken by [an] authority, whether statutory or not, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness” (DETR, 1999, paragraph 3) . The 1999 Local Government Act (LGA) imposes on most bodies within the local government finance system in Britain, including police and fire services, a duty to make arrangements for the achievement of Best Value in the performance of their functions.

The duty came into force from 1 April 2000, accompanying mandatory duties to consult with representative groups of specific categories of people, and to refer to any relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Section 5 of the 1999 LGA states that Best Value authorities must review all of their functions within a time period specified by the Secretary of State (initially, probably, a period of five years). Local performance plans relating to Best Value must then:

• • Provide local people with a summary of how far the authority was successful in meeting the objectives and performance targets of the previous year, and the results of its performance as compared with that of other Best Value authorities.

• • Inform local people of the performance targets it has set itself for the following year and future years, where necessary, and the extent to which it is on the way to meeting any longer-term targets. Where it is not on course, this may include an outline of what action(s) it is taking to remedy the situation.

• • Summarise the outcome of the reviews carried out under section 5, which will usually be expressed in the form of revised targets, and the future programme for achieving them.

The Audit Commission has powers of inspection under section 10 of the LGA to assess compliance with the requirements of Best Value, and retains duties under the 1998 Audit Commission Act to set local authority ‘performance indicators’.

The principles of Best Value include that the duty is owed by local authorities to local people, both as taxpayers and customers of local authority services. Performance plans should support the process of local accountability to the electorate. Achieving Best Value is not just about economy and efficiency, but also effectiveness and the quality of local services – so that the setting of targets and performance against these should underpin the regime.

On 18 August 1992, the Homelessness Policy Division of the Department of the Environment issued a letter in which comments were invited on an enclosed consultation paper by 13 November 1992. A separate but parallel consultation was simultaneously undertaken in Wales by the Welsh Office.

The paper was stated in the letter to contain:

The letter added that: “Paragraph 25 of the enclosed paper refers to Ministers’ intention that Exchequer grant to cover the capital costs of providing gypsy caravan sites should cease to be payable generally. I am writing separately today to every local authority in England to set out the factors which the Secretary of State will take into account in considering future applications for grant from authorities”.

What follows is the text of the consultation paper, and some of the responses to it. The text of the paper is in normal print, whereas some of the comments sent to the government during the consultation period have been interspersed and are given in boxes with author name(s) in brackets. Some of the formatting of the consultation paper has been changed to avoid confusion, but the text remains exactly as in the original:

Reform of the 1968 Caravan Sites Act

• 1 The Conservative Manifesto 1992 noted that illegal camping by gypsies and other travellers could affect the lives of whole communities. It contained an undertaking to review the Caravan Sites Act 1968 with the aim of reducing the nuisance of illegal encampments. This consultation paper invites views on the Government's proposals for reform.

• 1)Has your authority had to spend anything in connection with any unauthorised encampments of Gypsies or Travellers during the year between 1 September 1998 and 31 August 1999? YES/NO

• If so, please state how many encampments, and how many Travellers (put ‘E’ if estimate).

• 2) Is there a budget for some or all of this activity? How much is it, and who manages it?

• 3)Does your authority record the financial costs it bears in responding to these encampments? YES/NO

• 4) If the answer to question 3 was ‘yes’, please provide details of these costs in the table overleaf [see Table 3.1, page 42].

• If your answer was ‘no’, do you feel able to provide a ‘guesstimate’ of the costs to your authority of responding to unauthorised encampments? If so, please complete the table overleaf as well as you are able.

• 5)Does your authority employ a Gypsy/Traveller Liaison Officer? YES/NO If so, would your authority employ such an officer if there were significantly fewer (or no) unauthorised encampments in your area? YES/NO

• 6)What percentage of the cost of responding to unauthorised encampments would you estimate is in respect of Travellers with local connections, and with those Travellers who could be termed ‘long-distance’? (By ‘long distance’ we mean Travellers who come to your area only once or twice a year and often only remain for relatively short periods).

• 7)Do you believe that the annual cost to your authority of responding to unauthorised encampments is increasing or decreasing in real terms? INCREASING/DECREASING

• Please briefly state your reasons for this belief.

• 8)Do you have any other comments on the issue of the costs of responding to unauthorised encampments?