Allotments on the One Show, Greenwich allotmenteers fight 200% rent hike Options

[Simon Kirby]

I mentioned the other day about the plans of Greenwich Council to increase their allotment rents by 200%, and they were featured on the One Show last night - item starts 1 minute 45 seconds in.

Tenants there are facing a 200% rent increase - that would increase the cost of a standard plot from £67 to £200. Greenwich allotmenteers are fighting the increase on the basis of a 1982 High Court decision which requires councils to apply the same subsidy to allotments as it does to its other leisure services. There are a number of councils who are looking at similar price hikes, not least Newbury Town Council who have already proposed that a standard plot should cost £250, and similar legal challenges seem likely.

The significant difference between Greenwich and Newbury is that Greenwich is actively encouraging its sites to self-manage to avoid the increase:

The Council is very keen on the idea of sites moving to self-managed status. Self-managed sites would be able to set their own rents and manage their own maintenance

Newbury Town Council admit that their administration of their service costs the tax-payer around £80 per plot, and this compares rather poorly with commercial administration at around £8 per plot, and self-managed administration at around £2 per plot. I understand that an allotments management company has already made a formal approach to the Town Council to take on the management of the Council's six sites which would save the tax payer at least £40k by the Council's reckoning, and more likely twice that, with no increase in rent for the allotmenteers. It will be very interesting to see how the Town Council respond.

[Simon Kirby]

Come on Councillor, let's have your evidence.

Not so easy to control dissent in a public forum is it. You should have stuck to intimidating grieving mothers.

[Exhausted]

Come on Councillor, let's have your evidence.

Not so easy to control dissent in a public forum is it. You should have stuck to intimidating grieving mothers.

I think that you should ignore Panda, as somone has already suggested. I take the view that all he wants is to wind you up and I suspect he is winning. He accuses you of turning everything into a post about allotments when in fact the only subject that he has actually posted on is allotments. Most of his posts are just nonsense so if, as you believe, he is a Town councillor, all I can say is "Lawd help us".

[Cognosco]

I think that you should ignore Panda, as somone has already suggested. I take the view that all he wants is to wind you up and I suspect he is winning. He accuses you of turning everything into a post about allotments when in fact the only subject that he has actually posted on is allotments. Most of his posts are just nonsense so if, as you believe, he is a Town councillor, all I can say is "Lawd help us".

Yes Simon Don't Panda to the winding up?

It is so easy to disparage posters but it is very hard to produce factual evidence to prove them completely wrong?
Most of the time it seems you have to have a gut feeling that someone is telling the truth or otherwise and just go with it until such times as facts are substantiated? Only problem is it is very hard to get the substantiated facts especially when it relates to the business of the local authorities. Until such time as we have transparency in the business of the local authorities then every thing they do will have to be questioned in minute detail?

[NWNREADER]

Yes Simon Don't Panda to the winding up?

It is so easy to disparage posters but it is very hard to produce factual evidence to prove them completely wrong?
Most of the time it seems you have to have a gut feeling that someone is telling the truth or otherwise and just go with it until such times as facts are substantiated? Only problem is it is very hard to get the substantiated facts especially when it relates to the business of the local authorities. Until such time as we have transparency in the business of the local authorities then every thing they do will have to be questioned in minute detail?

Everything? Hope not!
Minute detail? Likewise....

I prefer to look at any political-based statement and se how it pans out with my gut feelings - as you say so correctly - and then the more I find the source was using weasel-words the less faith I have in any future statements.

[Cognosco]

Everything? Hope not!
Minute detail? Likewise....

I prefer to look at any political-based statement and se how it pans out with my gut feelings - as you say so correctly - and then the more I find the source was using weasel-words the less faith I have in any future statements.

So no faith in any posters then? Until proven otherwise?