their lack of support. Where are all the calls for self management?

We haven't had much from the 'other side' either, however; if Simon's accusations have any basis in truth, that might not be too far away!

Assuming an allotmenteer was impertinent enough to believe her opinion worth expressing, how would she express it? Would she write to the NWN or stand outside the Council offices with a placard? Because through any other route it'll be suppressed.

When the Town Council want our opinion they'll give it to us.

Here's my mate Tony on the radio this morning, 2h 11min in. He's secretary of the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston Allotment Association - a self-managed federation of about 800 plots that receives no subsidy from the tax-payer and charges about 1/3 the rent in Newbury.

They could post it on the Internet.

I'm not saying self management isn't cheaper. I'm saying your fellow allotment holders might not want it & might be happy paying higher rents to reduce the tax payer subsidy instead.

I might be wrong, but growing veg strikes me as a rather sedentary, private hobby where you go to be on your own & be by yourself. The thought of the calm being shattered by community & committees might be a total anathema to the vast majority......

So far we have heard one from each side of the fence.

Might, might, might.


And it might not, but where did this social conscience suddenly come from?

Is see it this way.

We NEED to stop spending money where it can be avoided. This seems an area where it might be possible to do so, but cuts means someone looses something. Councils are obliged to provide allotments, but I understand that they are not obliged to pay for it.

'Giving' allotments to people who are prepared to 'work for them', rather than based on the ability to pay seems progressive and a good example of encouraging a society, albeit not necessarily a big one

Next years increase is 0%. no increase in the rent

And how much will this cost the tax payer? Meanwhile; we are closing day centres.

I think it's a cost of £40.000 to the tax payer. I pay £6.94 per pole per year for my plot. I think that is great value.

I'm sure you do!

Do you think it is right that the tax payer pays this £40k?

If the costs can be reduced, I'm all for it. Even if a discussion takes place and there is support, the group which takes on self management would have to be a formally recognised organisation with a proper constitution to ensure we don't have any mini Gadaffi style leadership. If it was a democratic organisation, I would say that there is no reason for anyone to fear self management.

Do you indeed. Show us the receipt.

Might/maybe/perhaps/if/possibly are all the right words in this debate.

I agree that the allotments should not be funded by the tax payer. It is a leisure activity and a hangover from a past age.

No different from a debate on any council asset being handed over to those that use it for them to run & manage.

Is it alot of money for tax payers to pay, but I feel it is worthy. Yes it is a hobby/leisure activity but it is not money being wasted, MOST people use their plots regularly and get more out of it then just vegetables. What I think is a waste if when I am at the allotment and see plots that have been unkept and not used for ages. This plot could be given to someone else on the waiting list instead because at the moment it just looks a mess.

And yes I know Day Centers are being closed but that is another argument....

I don't think it is 'another argument'. If an alternative funding method can be established, I think we should explore it.

I don't think we can use the excuse that Day Centers are closing because tax payers pay for allotments. Day Centers are another argument because there should be NO reason why they should be closed at all. The Government should be paying to keep these open regardless.

Dannyboy, you're pretty much spot-on with your analysis. Allotmenteers want to be left alone to potter and relax, and at one time the Town Council, and NDC before them, ran the service very sensitively. The officers we dealt with were friendly and relaxed, the stewards kept a low profile and kept things ticking over, and the council pretty much left us to ourselves.

At Wash Common we didn't need a site association, we just did our own site maintenance without any fuss. Basically three or four of us, me amoungst them, would cut sections of the central grass path when we had our mowers up, and I'd clear out the back ditch each year. I even laid my section of allotment hedge and gapped it up - that alone cost me more than my annual rent but I was happy to do it because I enjoy my allotment.

And then that all changed. There was a regieme change at the Council, both officers and councillors, and we got a new site steward too. People started to get picked on, the council stopped us doing our own maintenace so they could build a grounds-maintenance empire, they imposed a whole new bunch of rules, and then started to ramp up the rents - all without any consultation whatsoever.

Eventually I started the site association to speak up for those who were being bullied and give the allotmenteers a voice, but that put me in the firing line and the rest is history. Those who benefit from the new regieme have no intention of giving up what they've got, and that is what this is all about.

I didn't particularly want self-management. I wanted a benign Town Council who let us get on with our allotmenteering in peace. I don't believe self-management has a hope of working now because that self-interest has so soured the debate - and I believe that was a deliberate and explicit policy.

The cost to the tax-payer is the issue that drives me least. I'm a tax-payer and I am indignant that the Big Fat State is bleeding us dry, but that is just part of a deeper-seated malignant arrogance at the Town Council and it is this that pushed me over the edge. To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.

Nor am I, but in principle it is true.


While that might be a morally reasonable point of view, it isn't what is happening.

This still does not trump the idea that if savings can be made to the tax payer, those initiatives should be properly reviewed. When does that not sound like a good idea?


I understand that, but it is the only argument that could achieve what you covet.

Saying the council have stuck their nose in and you want them out is a hiding to nothing.