Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Allotment Dispute

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 12:07 PM

The Town Council http://www.newbury.gov.uk/Public%20Statement%20-%20Allotment%20Dispute.pdf about my dispute with them. I would be grateful if you would read it and comment.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 12:12 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 12:07 PM) *
The Town Council http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=12098 about my dispute with them. I would be grateful if you would read it and comment.

Are you sure that is a NTC 'press release'?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 12:17 PM

That is a news report. I doubt NTC would quote Simon!!!!

Interesting that 'West Berks' Conservatives were against the change.

This is the NTC statement:

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/Public%20Statement%20-%20Allotment%20Dispute.pdf

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 12:36 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 22 2011, 12:17 PM) *
That is a news report. I doubt NTC would quote Simon!!!!

Interesting that 'West Berks' Conservatives were against the change.

This is the NTC statement:

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/Public%20Statement%20-%20Allotment%20Dispute.pdf

Sorry, pasted the wrong link. It's right now. http://www.newbury.gov.uk/Public%20Statement%20-%20Allotment%20Dispute.pdf.

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 12:41 PM

that was a news report from Jan 12th 2010. Over a year ago

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 12:47 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 12:41 PM) *
that was a news report from Jan 12th 2010. Over a year ago


Well spotted!!! Changes my original thoughts a bit

Posted by: Bofem Feb 22 2011, 12:59 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 22 2011, 12:47 PM) *
Well spotted!!! Changes my original thoughts a bit


Very interesting.

Firstly, NTC is wrong to say your comments are "libellous" against the council and its members.

This is breathtakingly incompetent. Councils cannot sue for libel. (details of latest case law below).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/6.html

More ominously, they claim the call for self-management is a 'one-person' campaign built on 'unrealistic' calculations. This could be proven to be an attack by a public body on your right to express your opinions (potential breach of Article 8 HRA).

It's quite extraordinary to respond in this way, and whatever the outcome, I would also instigate that the councillor who approved this has in turn 'brought the council into disrepute' (see code of conduct on NTC page) by attacking someone who doesn't like the way things are done.

So, Simon. Get the 'no win no fee' guys in, and if you win, donate the money to take on management of the allotments.



Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 01:04 PM

Anyone who doesn't pay there rent should be kicked off. £6.94p a year is that all!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 01:06 PM

What it does mean is that you have been given 'proper' notice to leave.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 22 2011, 01:06 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Feb 22 2011, 12:59 PM) *
Very interesting.

Firstly, NTC is wrong to say your comments are "libellous" against the council and its members.

This is breathtakingly incompetent. Councils cannot sue for libel. (details of latest case law below).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/6.html

More ominously, they claim the call for self-management is a 'one-person' campaign built on 'unrealistic' calculations. This could be proven to be an attack by a public body on your right to express your opinions (potential breach of Article 8 HRA).

It's quite extraordinary to respond in this way, and whatever the outcome, I would also instigate that the councillor who approved this has in turn 'brought the council into disrepute' (see code of conduct on NTC page) by attacking someone who doesn't like the way things are done.

So, Simon. Get the 'no win no fee' guys in, and if you win, donate the money to take on management of the allotments.


I have to agree with you. This is a very complex argument, but there is no excuse for targetted press releases at individuals. Surely a better outcome would have been mediation with both parties to resolve differences?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 01:07 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 01:04 PM) *
Anyone who doesn't pay there rent should be kicked off. £6.94p a year is that all!!

If you were to take the trouble to research the dispute, you might see that this is a complex argument of which the rent is only a part of the issue.

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 01:10 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 01:07 PM) *
If you were to take the trouble to research the dispute, you might see that this is a complex argument of which the rent is only a part of the issue.

yes i know

Posted by: Bofem Feb 22 2011, 01:20 PM

They think they're being clever by not naming Simon, so although the statement doesn't actually name him, as he's mentioned by name in previous NTC meeting minutes, there could also be a privacy issue of publishing confidential details (unless Simon has already done so of his own volition).

Either way, you should initially complain to WBC's Standards Committee, which will investigate this publication. But be quick, the committees going soon and parish councils appear to be answerable only to themselves! Help, we're being repressed!

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=1394&Ver=4


Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 01:35 PM

looks like simon has one or two people sucked into his stories

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 01:38 PM

If there was a grass roots (ho ho) campaign of allotment holders for self management, regardless of the 'savings' to be made I'd be all in favour of handing over the running of the allotments.

There isn't.



Posted by: Bofem Feb 22 2011, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 01:38 PM) *
If there was a grass roots (ho ho) campaign of allotment holders for self management, regardless of the 'savings' to be made I'd be all in favour of handing over the running of the allotments.

There isn't.


And there never will be if we allow campaigners to be evicted from their plots and publicly besmirched.

Now, I'm off to Market Place after Friday prayers to topple the regime.

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Feb 22 2011, 01:53 PM) *
And there never will be if we allow campaigners to be evicted from their plots and publicly besmirched.

Now, I'm off to Market Place after Friday prayers to topple the regime.

ha ha

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Feb 22 2011, 01:53 PM) *
And there never will be if we allow campaigners to be evicted from their plots and publicly besmirched.

Now, I'm off to Market Place after Friday prayers to topple the regime.



Then the rest of the 524 allotment holders must be very happy.

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 01:58 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 01:57 PM) *
Then the rest of the 524 allotment holders must be very happy.

they are

Posted by: massifheed Feb 22 2011, 01:59 PM

Well, whatever happens, they appear to have given you notice which is completely in accordance with the contract, so I don't know how you'd fight that.

I do think the wording of the press release is a little surprising. I'm not sure that there is much to take offence at, and they haven'y named you. But it smacks of a council department fed up with the carry on, so they've given up making things sound "frilly", and put it in plain English.

It would have been interesting for it to have gone to court. I know that would have potentially meant a lot of stress for you, but it would be good to get a proper judgement on it, rather than the council choosing to take a different route.

It sounds like you have a fair sized plot. Would you consider caving and just paying the increase or, with the apparent notice served, is that not even an option anymore and you have to leave?

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 02:01 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 01:58 PM) *
they are

and a lot of them will be happier when he goes

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 22 2011, 02:05 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 02:01 PM) *
and a lot of them will be happier when he goes


How do you know all this? Have you evidence?

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 02:07 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 22 2011, 02:05 PM) *
How do you know all this? Have you evidence?

Just go round some allotments and ask people what they think of him. then you will know

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 02:08 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 22 2011, 02:05 PM) *
How do you know all this? Have you evidence?


You don't need evidence. Just rumours.

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 22 2011, 02:09 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 02:07 PM) *
Just go round some allotments and ask people what they think of him. then you will know


My parents (who have an allotment) have not had this discussion with others about Simon. I asked them after reading the 1st thread on the forum, so you can not say ALOT of them, but the few you have spoken with.

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 22 2011, 02:12 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 02:08 PM) *
You don't need evidence. Just rumours.


Remember that when your fighting with RG over you wanting him providing evidence next time wink.gif


Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 22 2011, 02:12 PM) *
Remember that when your fighting with RG over you wanting him providing evidence next time wink.gif


I do, I do.


Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 22 2011, 02:09 PM) *
My parents (who have an allotment) have not had this discussion with others about Simon. I asked them after reading the 1st thread on the forum, so you can not say ALOT of them, but the few you have spoken with.


Perfect example.


Posted by: Darren Feb 22 2011, 02:17 PM

QUOTE
The individual continues to be classified as a Vexatious Complainant.


Which is legal speak for "we're now going to ignore you.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 03:07 PM

I know a 'Vexatious Litigant' is someone who the Civil Courts formally identify, and that person is then barred from taking out proceedings without leave of a Judge.
I'm not clear on Vexatious Complainant. While many councils have a published policy on the definition and actions to be taken it is hard to see how NTC justify the statement.
Councils are clearly entitled to declare someone to be a Vexatious Complainant, but with no public policy on the point (unless not on the web!) means someone so declared is at difficulty to know if the application is fair and proper, or how to overcome it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 04:43 PM

QUOTE (massifheed @ Feb 22 2011, 01:59 PM) *
Well, whatever happens, they appear to have given you notice which is completely in accordance with the contract, so I don't know how you'd fight that.

Indeed. The Council have withdrawn my eviction for rent arrears because the consumer protection rights that I asserted made the arrears unenforceable. However, they have given me notice to quit which is a completely seperate mechanism of bringing the tenancy to an end and requires no fault on my part. It would be possible to overturn the decision with a judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness but I can't afford to take that action and I don't believe I can make a public law defence in a county court possession application.

QUOTE (massifheed @ Feb 22 2011, 01:59 PM) *
It would have been interesting for it to have gone to court. I know that would have potentially meant a lot of stress for you, but it would be good to get a proper judgement on it, rather than the council choosing to take a different route.

I gave the Council a final Letter Before Action on Monday. I have again been billed for the increased rent and so if the Council do not concede the unenforceability of the increase by close of play Friday I will commence court action myself without any further delay. It won't defeat the Notice to Quit, but it will lay bare the true reason for the notice, and I will then have grounds to apply to the court for relief.

I have also renewed my complaint to Trading Standards. TS declined to take any action as the Town Council had purported to have terminated my tenancy, but the Council have acknowledged that the agreement remains in place and as the Council continue to enforce an unfair contract term it is the duty of Trading Standards to take enforcement action.

QUOTE (massifheed @ Feb 22 2011, 01:59 PM) *
It sounds like you have a fair sized plot. Would you consider caving and just paying the increase or, with the apparent notice served, is that not even an option anymore and you have to leave?

I've not been offered the option, but it is not my intention to waive my consumer rights or be intimidated into silence.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 04:47 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 02:07 PM) *
Just go round some allotments and ask people what they think of him. then you will know

I think it would interest the Forum if you were to name the chief instigator of this malignancy and detail the campaign against me, and you might also like to declare your own interest.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 05:13 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 04:47 PM) *
I think it would interest the Forum if you were to name the chief instigator of this malignancy and detail the campaign against me, and you might also like to declare your own interest.


Maybe a bit OTT.
You have been expansive on your work with the Wash Common site, but NTC would not want a split system. Even if 100% of Wash Common plot holders wanted to run their own scheme NTC would have to retain the infrastructure - at a greater cost per plot - for the remainder.
Clearly NTC are not minded to conduct any investigation of interest. Unless you can demonstrate that a good majority of all plot holders want a change then the democratic process would suggest you should not continue to press for self-management.
You may have a case regarding the fees issue (not the fee itself, but the process for deciding and promulgating). If you eat the elephant slice by slice eventually you might get there. You are trying to swallow it whole.

I think you should have continued to pay the rent at the rate it was prior to your objection, but What I know about the Law of Property could be written in the same space as RGs 'What I like about WBC list'

Posted by: Strafin Feb 22 2011, 05:15 PM

It strikes me that this statement shows that Simon was right, but that there are other avenues for the council to go down in order to go through with their rent increase. I don't think that anyone believes the charges are too high, but the council have not acted lawfully in putting them up. I am pleased that Simon has fought this far, but they're going to get him out however you look at it.

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 05:16 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 04:47 PM) *
I think it would interest the Forum if you were to name the chief instigator of this malignancy and detail the campaign against me, and you might also like to declare your own interest.

I didn't say there was a campaign against you.

Posted by: ebalch Feb 22 2011, 05:26 PM

I don't have any involvement in the dispute or any interest in the allotments but from all I've read on the forum about this matter (there's been plenty to read!), it's nice to finally hear a comment back from the council, albeit one which seems rather defensive.

It would seem that the council have acted incorrectly (though I'm only basing that on what I've read from Simon) and now they have decided to adopt a new stance of ignorance towards Simon, which still doesn't address the issue directly. Trying to ignore a problem doesn't make it go away. It would be nice for those in power to admit they've done wrong from time to time, even if only to apologise for their perceived bad behavior. If they wish to adopt a new policy of eviction then so be it but we're all capable of apologies and it doesn't weaken your position to admit you've made mistakes in the past.

For what it's worth, good luck to you Simon.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 22 2011, 05:44 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 12:07 PM) *
The Town Council http://www.newbury.gov.uk/Public%20Statement%20-%20Allotment%20Dispute.pdf about my dispute with them. I would be grateful if you would read it and comment.


Simon it is hard to give a detailed comment as we have only heard your side of the argument?

Knowing the reputation of the local authorities that run Newbury I have no reason to doubt anything you say but I would still like to see all correspondence etc. It is like a jury trying to make a decision without hearing all the evidence?

It would appear that they have been very heavy handed over someone who is really only technically in rent arrears?

Simon are you really the only one who would like allotment self management?

I do believe the council to issue this statement in this way they need to be rebuked and severely.

Having looked at some of the legal issues I would agree it seems from your evidence Simon the council are not abiding by the law let alone the spirit of the law?

I fail to see why, with the cost to the taxpayer, the council are not eager to let the allotmenteers self manage if there is enough wanting it? How much would it cost to prepare a questionnaire to all allotment holders asking if they are prepared to self manage? This would put the issue to rest surely providing all the facts from both arguments were explained?

The only way to settle this argument if both parties are not prepared to go to any arbitration is for the case to go before the courts?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 05:45 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 22 2011, 05:13 PM) *
You have been expansive on your work with the Wash Common site, but NTC would not want a split system. Even if 100% of Wash Common plot holders wanted to run their own scheme NTC would have to retain the infrastructure - at a greater cost per plot - for the remainder.
Clearly NTC are not minded to conduct any investigation of interest. Unless you can demonstrate that a good majority of all plot holders want a change then the democratic process would suggest you should not continue to press for self-management.

The issue here it not whether self-management is the right thing, but whether I should be evicted for demanding it. Ask yourself - what would David Cameron do?


QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 22 2011, 05:13 PM) *
You may have a case regarding the fees issue (not the fee itself, but the process for deciding and promulgating). If you eat the elephant slice by slice eventually you might get there. You are trying to swallow it whole.

I think you should have continued to pay the rent at the rate it was prior to your objection, but What I know about the Law of Property could be written in the same space as RGs 'What I like about WBC list'

What's the elephant thing?

I have indeed paid the rent at the pre-objection rate.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 05:53 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 22 2011, 05:44 PM) *
Simon it is hard to give a detailed comment as we have only heard your side of the argument?

Knowing the reputation of the local authorities that run Newbury I have no reason to doubt anything you say but I would still like to see all correspondence etc. It is like a jury trying to make a decision without hearing all the evidence?

It would appear that they have been very heavy handed over someone who is really only technically in rent arrears?

Simon are you really the only one who would like allotment self management?

I do believe the council to issue this statement in this way they need to be rebuked and severely.

Having looked at some of the legal issues I would agree it seems from your evidence Simon the council are not abiding by the law let alone the spirit of the law?

I fail to see why, with the cost to the taxpayer, the council are not eager to let the allotmenteers self manage if there is enough wanting it? How much would it cost to prepare a questionnaire to all allotment holders asking if they are prepared to self manage? This would put the issue to rest surely providing all the facts from both arguments were explained?

The only way to settle this argument if both parties are not prepared to go to any arbitration is for the case to go before the courts?

The Wash Common Allotment Society surveyed it's members on self-management and from memory it was like 85% who were willing to contribute to the administration and maintenance.

I'm very happy to hand over all correspondence to any enquirery, the problem has been finding any authority willing to enquire. Do you have something in mind?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 05:58 PM

I think the council have issued a statement that somewhat shows the bad faith between you and the council. With the way the notice is written, I find it hard to believe that you couldn't have in some way done something to deserve the vexatious tag.

While you have not been named, it is quite obvious from text that lies within the public domain who it is they are referring to. I would expect better from council officials and feel they have issued the statement with regrettable malice.

QUOTE (PUBLIC STATEMENT Date: 21 February 2011 ALLOTMENT DISPUTE)
There are advantages to self-management in certain circumstances, but the cost savings claimed by this individual are wholly unrealistic, the risk of failure is high, and in fact the vast majority of the Council’s allotment tenants are happy with the traditional method of allotment management currently deployed (as is made clear to the Council through the regular tenants’ meetings and “self-help” associations).

A detailed Self-Management proposal that explains the benefit to Newbury’s residents as well as its allotment tenants would of course be considered, but despite a great deal of rhetoric, no such proposal has been made.

Several things I found interesting in this passage above.

A detailed Self-Management proposal explaining the benefits from Simon Kirkby has not been made, yet they know enough to say that his costs savings are unrealistic.

They say the vast majority are happy with the current set up, but that isn't the same as saying they have made enquiries and self management hasn't proved popular.

It's like as has been posted before, perhaps tax payers should push for self management regardless what either parties feel? Make self management a prerequisite for owning an allotment?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 05:45 PM) *
The issue here it not whether self-management is the right thing, but whether I should be evicted for demanding it. I suspect you are being evicted for non-payment of rent, in legal terms, even if you believe there is a hidden agenda. You should get in writing the grounds for eviction.

What's the elephant thing? You have taken on a multi-faceted task and are trying to do it all at once. Deal with the elements one at a time so you stay focused and the issue of the day does not get lost in all manner of side/supplementary/other issues you are champing at the bit to raise.

I have indeed paid the rent at the pre-objection rate. I would like to think a Court would agree that eviction while in dispute is a bit heavy handed. Have you ever told the Council you are happy to pay the full amount if you are found against, or acccept you had no case?


Keep your head on straight and do not get emotional. Ask simple and direct questions:
Please tell me the grounds on which I am being evicted
What is the NTC definition of a vexatious complainant and what is the adopted policy for dealing with such a person
When was the definition and policy adopted.

Be a Shaolin, not Gen Patton.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 22 2011, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 22 2011, 06:24 PM) *
Keep your head on straight and do not get emotional. Ask simple and direct questions:
Please tell me the grounds on which I am being evicted
What is the NTC definition of a vexatious complainant and what is the adopted policy for dealing with such a person
When was the definition and policy adopted.

Be a Shaolin, not Gen Patton.


And you still expect them to answer??? wink.gif Local authorities don't do answers; or at least not what the average person can understand. laugh.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 06:45 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 05:58 PM) *
A detailed Self-Management proposal explaining the benefits from Simon Kirkby has not been made, yet they know enough to say that his costs savings are unrealistic.

Let's nail this. You can't make a detailed proposal until there's been a consultation and the allotmenteers know what's involved and you know the allotmenteers are on board.

Such was the Council's antipathy to any form of allotmenteer-involvement it did not even recognise the existence of the Wash Common Allotment Society, and despite the evidence of a sixty-signature petition for a site hut presented to the Chief Executive and Town Mayor, the Council used the Society's supposed non-existence as a reasons to decline permission for the site hut. The Society's priority therefore was to negotiate a formal recognition agreement with the Council. This we concluded in October 2009 and it went before the Council on 1 March 2010. In the intervening months the issue of the rent increase had come up and the Society had made representations to the Council officers and members to consider the option of self-management rather than imposing a significant increase in rent. Our representations were ignored and we therefore formally asked the Council to hold talks with the Society about self-management, and this proposal also came before the 1 March Community Services Committee. It is a matter of public record that the Council resolved to not discuss self-management, and to not recognise the Allotment Society, in large part because we had asked to discuss self-management.

The Council's assertion that there has been no detailed proposal is therefore grossly disengenuous, and as a consequence of that Resolution of 1 March the Council is not legally able even to discuss self-management without another Resolution to enable it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 06:51 PM

I think it stands out clearly that the council appear 'happy' that self management is not to proceed, despite being an example of the flagship Tories policy. I think we really should be asking why the council are not promoting this as an option. There's nothing in the public notice that suggests to me they are eager to off-load the burden of allotments from the tax payer to the allotmenteers.

Put in simple terms, it seems like they are ducking the issue.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 22 2011, 06:24 PM) *
Keep your head on straight and do not get emotional. Ask simple and direct questions:
Please tell me the grounds on which I am being evicted
What is the NTC definition of a vexatious complainant and what is the adopted policy for dealing with such a person
When was the definition and policy adopted.

Be a Shaolin, not Gen Patton.

Actully I see myself more as a beserk. unsure.gif

Your advice is kindly given and I'll make an effort to heed it.

And yes, I've been very open with the Council, and especially so with the Council's Solicitor and made it clear that I have no intention of avoiding a legitimate increase and am more than willing to pay the increase if the Council can show me why my objection is unfounded. Since I raised the issue of the Regulations with the Council 18 months ago the Council have ignored my representations and declined to discuss the issue. I was eventually allowed to take my complaint to Full Council but that isn't really an appropriate forum and 10 minutes wasn't enough for me to put accross a reasonably technical argument, so the first genuine engagement with my protest was 6 weeks ago when I met the Council solicitor, and since then I have had no response from the Council other than the revocation of my eviction for arrears and my Notice to Quit.

Do you think Patton was right about the Russians?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 07:00 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 06:51 PM) *
I think it stands out clearly that the council appear 'happy' that self management is not to proceed, despite being an example of the flagship Tories policy. I think we really should be asking why the council are not promoting this as an option. There's nothing in the public notice that suggests to me they are eager to off-load the burden of allotments from the tax payer to the allotmenteers.

You'd think they would be as the Lib Dems wanted to whack up the rent to reduce the burden on the tax payer.

I can understand a site hut request being turned down, regardless of the status of the allotments. If one site gets one, they'll all want one & who is paying for them? Seems a bit selfish to ask for a hut & have it paid for & then take over site management so you don't have to pay as much rent!


Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 07:03 PM

What it looks like to me is that the council are choosing the 'easy option' because their legal position is weak.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 07:04 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 07:03 PM) *
What it looks like to me is that the council are choosing the 'easy option' because their legal position is weak.

Dunno.

There is more to the story, I'll bet.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 07:07 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 07:00 PM) *
I can understand a site hut request being turned down, regardless of the status of the allotments. If one site gets one, they'll all want one & who is paying for them? Seems a bit selfish to ask for a hut & have it paid for & then take over site management so you don't have to pay as much rent!

You ask a question then base the assumed answer on your substantive point. Also, self management is a two way deal - lower rent, more work. That seems a fair deal to me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 07:10 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 07:04 PM) *
Dunno. There is more to the story, I'll bet.

So do I, but both parties, while full of bluster, don't seem to have the wherewithal to take legal action, although Simon Kirkby seems to think he might.

I think Simon Kirkby should stop telling the 'enemy' his next move. Knowledge is power.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 07:07 PM) *
You ask a question then base the assumed answer on your substantive point. Also, self management is a two way deal - lower rent, more work. That seems a fair deal to me.


So long as the work gets done.

You don't think a hut would be popular at all sites?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 07:15 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 07:12 PM) *
So long as the work gets done. You don't think a hut would be popular at all sites?

Yes, but it is not clear to me how the hut was proposed to be funded.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 07:15 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 07:10 PM) *
So do I, but both parties, while full of bluster, don't seem to have the wherewithal to take legal action, although Simon Kirkby seems to think he might.

I think Simon Kirkby should stop telling the 'enemy' his next move. Knowledge is power.


Nah, they should just sit round a table & let the one with the biggest marrow win. Cue Wurzzels


He was leaning on the garden gate the other day,
And beckoned to a lady who lives just across the way,
He took her down the garden path and showed it to her with pride,
And when she saw the size of it, the little lady sighed..

Ooooh! What a beauty, I've never seen one as big as that before,
Oh Oh! What a beauty, it must be two foot long or even more.
And it's such a lovely color, so big, and round, and fat,
I've never seen a marrow grow quite as big as that,
Oh Oh! What a beauty, I've never seen one as big as that before.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 07:18 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 07:00 PM) *
You'd think they would be as the Lib Dems wanted to whack up the rent to reduce the burden on the tax payer.

I can understand a site hut request being turned down, regardless of the status of the allotments. If one site gets one, they'll all want one & who is paying for them? Seems a bit selfish to ask for a hut & have it paid for & then take over site management so you don't have to pay as much rent!

The request was for permission to build the hut ourselves, it would have cost the Council nothing. My plan was to build it from pallets, and when we were refused permission I built myself one at zero cost to prove the concept - it came second in the 2008 Shed of the Year competition. Site huts are pretty much ubiquitous on allotment sites as a communal focus and somewhere to buy seeds, sundries and tea. Have you never seen the film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grow_Your_Own_%28film%29?

My Shed.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 07:24 PM

You need to get more support then at grass roots. Proper support from your fellow allotmenteers.


Posted by: Cognosco Feb 22 2011, 07:26 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 07:00 PM) *
You'd think they would be as the Lib Dems wanted to whack up the rent to reduce the burden on the tax payer.

I can understand a site hut request being turned down, regardless of the status of the allotments. If one site gets one, they'll all want one & who is paying for them? Seems a bit selfish to ask for a hut & have it paid for & then take over site management so you don't have to pay as much rent!


If I understood the request for a site hut properly it was to be funded by the allotment society?

It still boils down to why the council do not want to reduce the taxpayers precept by offloading the high costs of the allotments to self management.

I would still like to know why the allotment costs are relatively so high compared to other councils?

From what little information I have at the moment I would agree it seems the council have not acted with the best of decorum in this?

Why did they not want a Wash Common Allotment Society to be formed?
Instead of answers it just produces more questions?

A council should be able to deal with something like this without resorting to tactics like this?
Is there any arbitration procedure that could be used to try and get this to some sort of conclusion so there are no losers?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 07:36 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 22 2011, 07:26 PM) *
If I understood the request for a site hut properly it was to be funded by the allotment society?

It still boils down to why the council do not want to reduce the taxpayers precept by offloading the high costs of the allotments to self management.

I would still like to know why the allotment costs are relatively so high compared to other councils?

From what little information I have at the moment I would agree it seems the council have not acted with the best of decorum in this?

Why did they not want a Wash Common Allotment Society to be formed?
Instead of answers it just produces more questions?

A council should be able to deal with something like this without resorting to tactics like this?
Is there any arbitration procedure that could be used to try and get this to some sort of conclusion so there are no losers?


Yes but your biased.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 07:44 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 07:36 PM) *
Yes but your biased.

Wishing for arbitration is reasonable. I'd like to think something like that exists. I don't like to think our council has the power to ignore.

Now that Simon Kirkby has confirmed the cost of the shed to the tax payer, what is your complaint now towards him?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 07:52 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 07:44 PM) *
Wishing for arbitration is reasonable. I'd like to think something like that exists. I don't like to think our council has the power to ignore.

Now that Simon Kirkby has confirmed the cost of the shed to the tax payer, what is your complaint now towards him?

Same as it was when he first posted, months back - lack of support from the other allotment holders.


I've said before that I don't care who runs the allotments. I don't have one or want one.
But if folk really do want to run their own allotments & the cost to the tax payer would be £0.00 then it should have happened years ago. NTC can't ignore 525 allotment holders.




Posted by: Iommi Feb 22 2011, 08:19 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 07:52 PM) *
I've said before that I don't care who runs the allotments. I don't have one or want one. But if folk really do want to run their own allotments & the cost to the tax payer would be £0.00 then it should have happened years ago. NTC can't ignore 525 allotment holders.

So 14,000 tax payers 'shouldn't have a say'? Like I said before, we should insist they self-manage, if it saves tax.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 08:22 PM

Or at very least it should be debated in some form, but it seems the council don't want to do it. It makes me wonder how eager they are to save money.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 22 2011, 08:23 PM

Perhaps we need some old and frail people on allotments, the council would soon start cutting services then! tongue.gif

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 08:42 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 05:53 PM) *
The Wash Common Allotment Society surveyed it's members on self-management and from memory it was like 85% who were willing to contribute to the administration and maintenance.

I'm very happy to hand over all correspondence to any enquirery, the problem has been finding any authority willing to enquire. Do you have something in mind?

why are you not a committee member of the wash common allotment society anymore.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 08:45 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 08:42 PM) *
why are you not a committee member of the wash common allotment society anymore.


He's told us on another thread.

Are you a teaspoon?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 22 2011, 08:19 PM) *
So 14,000 tax payers 'shouldn't have a say'? Like I said before, we should insist they self-manage, if it saves tax.

If it saves tax.

Like I said - get a campaign going.

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 09:07 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 22 2011, 08:45 PM) *
He's told us on another thread.

Are you a teaspoon?

He told you did he

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 09:09 PM

My friend has mailed this, I thought you might be interested.

QUOTE
Hi Ifor,

as the general secretary of an allotment association, with 14 sites, over 850 plots, and approx 650 tenants ( some with more than one plot) I am interested in the running costs of allotments. Our association, Great Yarmouth & Gorleston Allotments Association Ltd, affiliated to both NSALG and the RHS, manages our association for less than 16 thousand pounds per annum. (this includes room hire for meetings / presentations, insurance costs, affiliation fees, water costs, accountants / auditors fees, postage and printing, maintenance, etc etc)

could you let me know how your council manages to spend ‘around’ 61 thousand pounds on 525 plots?



Rgds and thanks.

Tony Pitchford, Gen Sec, GY&GAALtd.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 22 2011, 09:15 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 22 2011, 07:36 PM) *
Yes but your biased.


How am I biased? I have not got an allotment? I a not a politician or a councillor?
I am a taxpayer and would like to know that the taxpayers are getting value for money and if allotments can be run as effectively and for less cost then I am all for it.

Then if you class that as being biased then yes I must be? wink.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 09:39 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 09:09 PM) *
My friend has mailed this, I thought you might be interested.

Well it's 525 tenants, not plots... wink.gif

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 08:42 PM) *
why are you not a committee member of the wash common allotment society anymore.

still waiting for an answer

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 10:16 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 10:02 PM) *
still waiting for an answer


If you have something to say, get on with it.

Perhaps you are a Kenwood

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 10:23 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 09:39 PM) *
Well it's 525 tenants, not plots... wink.gif

I see what you did there, you believed the Council's figures didn't you.

They said the average allotment is 5.06 poles in area and costs £32.62, but at £6.94 per pole a plot of 5.06 poles should cost £35.12.

The Council's accounts show that they've taken £18,233 in rent, so if the average plot costs £32.62 then that suggests there are 559 plots, but if the average plot is 5.06 poles then that suggest there are 519 plots. As it happens the Council only refund outgoing tenants if they apply for a refund so some of that revenue comes from selling the same plot twice.

They also said they budgeted to subsidise the service with £42,500, but actually they budgeted to subsidise by £43,200, but they happened to generate £18,200 of revenue rather than the £17,500 they'd budgeted for.

Rather than these minor discrepancies it's probably more interesting to look at the £42,500 that self-management would have saved the tax-payer - and of course that doesn't include any apportionment of the several hundred thousand pounds of back-office admin and stuff that the Council didn't mention. wink.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 10:34 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 10:02 PM) *
still waiting for an answer

I felt I was embarrassing the Committee; generally because I believed the Council would not work with the Society whilst I was involved, and specifically because the Council had served me with a notice that my flag was breaking some imagined site rule and the Committee felt unable to support me.

Now, would you like to answer my question?

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 22 2011, 10:36 PM

I know you can put people on "ignore" - but is there any way you can put a thread on "ignore"? tongue.gif

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 10:38 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 10:34 PM) *
I felt I was embarrassing the Committee; generally because I believed the Council would not work with the Society whilst I was involved, and specifically because the Council had served me with a notice that my flag was breaking some imagined site rule and the Committee felt unable to support me.

Now, would you like to answer my question?

which one

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 10:41 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 10:38 PM) *
which one

http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=1191&view=findpost&p=35770

Posted by: Iommi Feb 22 2011, 10:42 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 22 2011, 10:36 PM) *
I know you can put people on "ignore" - but is there any way you can put a thread on "ignore"? tongue.gif

Yes, and you can start by coming up with a thread more interesting. Something about capitol punishment, severe gaols, ASBOs, gassing paedos, immigration and the like should suit you.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 22 2011, 10:45 PM

Lookout, the resident clown's about!

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 10:48 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 22 2011, 10:42 PM) *
capitol punishment


Is that what they call making someone listen to an American politician?

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 10:56 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2011, 10:41 PM) *
http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=1191&view=findpost&p=35770

I already told you that i didn't say there was a campaign against you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 10:57 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 10:56 PM) *
I already told you that i didn't say there was a campaign against you.

"and you might also like to declare your own interest." ?

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 11:03 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 10:57 PM) *
"and you might also like to declare your own interest." ?

I just think that this person comes out with a lot of stuff and people seem to go along with it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 11:07 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 11:03 PM) *
I just think that this person comes out with a lot of stuff and people seem to go along with it.

And why shouldn't anyone (except people sensitive to criticism of our local councils)? These are open forums and anyone is free to refute the claims.

Posted by: panda Feb 22 2011, 11:27 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2011, 11:07 PM) *
And why shouldn't anyone (except people sensitive to criticism of our local councils)? These are open forums and anyone is free to refute the claims.

so tell me, do you honestly believe his stories

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 11:34 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 11:27 PM) *
so tell me, do you honestly believe his stories

I believe what he says he thinks is true, but until I hear different, I have no tangible reason to disbelieve him. I also realise that there is usually two side to a story.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2011, 11:42 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 22 2011, 11:27 PM) *
so tell me, do you honestly believe his stories

It's a public forum, if you want to refute something I've said then out with it. As has been said several times already, mine is the only point of view that has so far been expressed, and that even strikes me as odd. If you have contradictory evidence then share it.

Posted by: Bofem Feb 23 2011, 12:10 AM

Back to the original point

Simon's shoddy treatment highlights again how incompetent Newbury Town Council is. If they're not banning grieving families from placing mementoes on graves, they're turning away potential traders from the market, and now persecuting an allotment holder who wants things done differently.

Seriously, why don't we abolish it? I am not sure how, but there's got to be a way. Who's in?




Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 12:10 AM

Anarchy!


Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 12:14 AM

maybe you should all get out more

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 12:43 AM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 12:14 AM) *
maybe you should all get out more

It's no better there either!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2011, 08:24 AM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Feb 23 2011, 12:10 AM) *
Back to the original point

Simon's shoddy treatment highlights again how incompetent Newbury Town Council is. If they're not banning grieving families from placing mementoes on graves, they're turning away potential traders from the market, and now persecuting an allotment holder who wants things done differently.

Seriously, why don't we abolish it? I am not sure how, but there's got to be a way. Who's in?

Yes Bofem, I couldn't agree more. It takes six local electors to call a parish meeting, and then just ten electors to vote in favour of a motion to hold a referendum. If ten of us can agree on the text of a question to put the the people of Newbury then I suggest we force a referendum, either on self-management or de-parishing.

Obvioulsy, it would be nice to get some support for my position too: I was prepared to lose my allotment if I was wrong about the consumer protection law, but I'm not prepared to lose it because I was right!

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 10:13 AM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 12:14 AM) *
maybe you should all get out more


Why don't you try and add something worthwhile instead of all the silly comments you make with your one line sentances?

Oh....Just remembered, it's half term isn't it dry.gif

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 10:31 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 23 2011, 08:24 AM) *
If ten of us can agree on the text of a question to put the the people of Newbury then I suggest we force a referendum, either on self-management or de-parishing.

And then what?


Posted by: the bloke on the street Feb 23 2011, 10:36 AM

well, I've tried to add 2 posts to this thread, but neither has appeared. is NTC controlling this board?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 10:39 AM

QUOTE (the bloke on the street @ Feb 23 2011, 10:36 AM) *
well, I've tried to add 2 posts to this thread, but neither has appeared. is NTC controlling this board?

this one appeared

Posted by: the bloke on the street Feb 23 2011, 10:39 AM

I have enquired of NTC whether they would consider out-sourcing management of the allotment sites.
this could save local tax-payers approx £50, 000 per annum.
I am awaiting response from them.

rgds. Tony



Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 23 2011, 11:06 AM

NTC say they would consider it, but a fully costed proposal would have to be submitted and there would also have to be support from the allotment holders. I've already asked the question on behalf of someone else.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 11:17 AM

and there would also have to be support from the allotment holders.

Get that & away you go.

Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 12:10 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 23 2011, 10:13 AM) *
Why don't you try and add something worthwhile instead of all the silly comments you make with your one line sentances?

Oh....Just remembered, it's half term isn't it dry.gif

I would if it was worthwhile but its the same five or six people on here all the time. Sad really

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 12:32 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 12:10 PM) *
I would if it was worthwhile but its the same five or six people on here all the time. Sad really

So why are you bothering to contribute all if youif you are of that opinion. Why don't you go and do something else?

Posted by: Bofem Feb 23 2011, 12:41 PM

Hmmm...from six of us calling a meeting, I can see we'd need 3000 households (51%) to go with us (based on 50% turnout) to 'de-parish' this busted flush.

Are there 3000 Newbury people out there who want to save £70 a year by farming out the allotments, parks, cemeteries etc to community groups?

Any ideas what to do with the town hall afterwards? I was thinking indoor craft/antiques market.

Or am I just an ill-informed vexacious internet poster?

Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 12:42 PM

QUOTE (Bloggo @ Feb 23 2011, 12:32 PM) *
So why are you bothering to contribute all if youif you are of that opinion. Why don't you go and do something else?

it amuses me how people get sucked into this

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 12:46 PM

Forum warning: panda is a wind-up merchant, the best advice is to ignore this poster. Unless of course, they actually post something worth while responding to.

Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 12:49 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2011, 12:46 PM) *
Forum warning: panda is a wind-up merchant, the best advice is to ignore this poster. Unless of course, they actually post something worth while responding to.

ok andy i will ignore you

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 12:52 PM

Too wet for the park today is it Panda?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2011, 12:57 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 12:49 PM) *
ok andy i will ignore you

Everything's black and white with you isn't it.

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 12:59 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 12:42 PM) *
it amuses me how people get sucked into this

Like you are eh?
I suggest you find something more rewarding for you to do.

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 01:00 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 23 2011, 12:57 PM) *
Everything's black and white with you isn't it.

laugh.gif laugh.gif priceless.

Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 23 2011, 12:57 PM) *
Everything's black and white with you isn't it.

same with you

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2011, 01:06 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Feb 23 2011, 12:41 PM) *
Hmmm...from six of us calling a meeting, I can see we'd need 3000 households (51%) to go with us (based on 50% turnout) to 'de-parish' this busted flush.

Are there 3000 Newbury people out there who want to save £70 a year by farming out the allotments, parks, cemeteries etc to community groups?

Any ideas what to do with the town hall afterwards? I was thinking indoor craft/antiques market.

Or am I just an ill-informed vexacious internet poster?

Is there actually a mechanism to force a deparishing? As dannyboy alluded, there's no compunction on a parish council to take action on the result of a public referendum.

An indoor market/arcade is a great idea - I love going round places like that. If it was tied in with the charter market then so much the better. Successful town markets have created a unique brand for themselves - like books, or food, or antiques, etc. I suspect the salvation of a market/arcade would involve a similar distinctiveness.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2011, 01:07 PM

QUOTE (Bloggo @ Feb 23 2011, 01:00 PM) *
laugh.gif laugh.gif priceless.

I thank you! laugh.gif

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 01:13 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 23 2011, 01:07 PM) *
I thank you! laugh.gif

Looks like it missed the target though. wink.gif

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (Bloggo @ Feb 23 2011, 01:13 PM) *
Looks like it missed the target though. wink.gif


laugh.gif Totally!

Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 01:25 PM

Just one more thing before i go out to play. how did simon's shed get second place in a competition. It looks like a run of the mill shed to me. the ones you can get from homebase.

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 01:29 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 01:25 PM) *
Just one more thing before i go out to play. how did simon's shed get second place in a competition. It looks like a run of the mill shed to me. the ones you can get from homebase.

I guess he bamboozled the judges.

Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (Bloggo @ Feb 23 2011, 01:29 PM) *
I guess he bamboozled the judges.

ahhh it was fixed

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 02:36 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 01:30 PM) *
ahhh it was fixed


Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 02:44 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2011, 02:36 PM) *


But it's fun!

Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 23 2011, 02:44 PM) *
But it's fun!

i agree

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 02:48 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 02:46 PM) *
i agree


Thought you were out playing?

Posted by: the bloke on the street Feb 23 2011, 03:02 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 01:25 PM) *
Just one more thing before i go out to play. how did simon's shed get second place in a competition. It looks like a run of the mill shed to me. the ones you can get from homebase.


panda
you really should get out more!
the shed came second in a national competition, and has been featured on TV and Radio.
I have been privileged to see photo's of the construction, and of the interior. It's a well made shed, mostly from reclaimed / recycled products.

the sheds your mummy buys from homebase are not actually fit for purpose (as an allotment shed) but probably OK as a play-pen for you, or somewhere to keep your toys in.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 04:01 PM

OK, far be it for me to decide how things should be, but currently a number of people are allowing panda to ruin the thread. Of course, there could be a few people here that are happy to see that happen.

That is enough from me on this.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 23 2011, 04:34 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 23 2011, 01:06 PM) *
Is there actually a mechanism to force a deparishing? As dannyboy alluded, there's no compunction on a parish council to take action on the result of a public referendum.

An indoor market/arcade is a great idea - I love going round places like that. If it was tied in with the charter market then so much the better. Successful town markets have created a unique brand for themselves - like books, or food, or antiques, etc. I suspect the salvation of a market/arcade would involve a similar distinctiveness.


I can't say I support deparishing completely. I'm all for devolving services, but I'm not sure getting rid of the Parish completely is a good thing. Just my personal opinion.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 04:38 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 23 2011, 04:34 PM) *
I can't say I support deparishing completely. I'm all for devolving services, but I'm not sure getting rid of the Parish completely is a good thing. Just my personal opinion.

Personally I think having a whole load of trumped up Margo Leadbetters running anything they could get their hands on would be great.

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2011, 04:01 PM) *
OK, far be it for me to decide how things should be, but currently a number of people are allowing panda to ruin the thread. Of course, there could be a few people here that are happy to see that happen.

That is enough from me on this.


Andy, as you realise, you are not forum manager, so I/we can reply to whoever/whenever we want to. I don't normally feed trolls but 'ya know what I was bored and it was entertaining, and I may well feed the panda again, but it is not to 'annoy' YOU


Posted by: Cognosco Feb 23 2011, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 23 2011, 04:34 PM) *
I can't say I support deparishing completely. I'm all for devolving services, but I'm not sure getting rid of the Parish completely is a good thing. Just my personal opinion.


Just what use are they if they are not representing the taxpayer? I do not know how many allotmenteers are, or would, support self management if all the facts were known? But if the savings for the taxpayer are what are estimated then why are the council not all for it? Just look at the cost of running NTC what do the taxpayer get for this? Do we deserve to let a council like this survive when they treat a tenant in this way? To evict a tenant for explaining the law to them and pointing out they have not followed procedure to raise rents is totally wrong.

Simon may not be the most polite person when it comes to explaining the grievances he has with NTC but that is no excuse for what they are doing to him now.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 23 2011, 06:07 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 23 2011, 06:02 PM) *
Just what use are they if they are not representing the taxpayer? I do not know how many allotmenteers are, or would, support self management if all the facts were known? But if the savings for the taxpayer are what are estimated then why are the council not all for it? Just look at the cost of running NTC what do the taxpayer get for this? Do we deserve to let a council like this survive when they treat a tenant in this way? To evict a tenant for explaining the law to them and pointing out they have not followed procedure to raise rents is totally wrong.

Simon may not be the most polite person when it comes to explaining the grievances he has with NTC but that is no excuse for what they are doing to him now.


I would love to see Simon and people with a genuine interest in local issues on the town council. I agree that allotments could be self managed if there was demand, and I agree that the xmas lights could be farmed out too. But there would still be the need for a parish functionality of some kind. The best way to force change is by standing up and trying to help make it happen by getting elected.

Simon, you have my support with allotments, and as you know I'm happy to sit down with you at any point to help put together a strong proposal to put forward tothe council. I just don't feel that I can support complete de-parishing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 06:13 PM

Post error.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 23 2011, 06:07 PM) *
I agree that allotments could be self managed if there was demand, and I agree that the xmas lights could be farmed out too. But there would still be the need for a parish functionality of some kind. The best way to force change is by standing up and trying to help make it happen by getting elected.

Holy Mackrel - a Post I agree with 100%. Well, the bit above.

Xmas lights used to be in house & done each year by NTC's own electrician. Now they are contracted out.

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 08:37 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 23 2011, 07:11 PM) *
Holy Mackrel - a Post I agree with 100%. Well, the bit above.


It's a miracle!!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2011, 09:39 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 23 2011, 06:07 PM) *
I would love to see Simon and people with a genuine interest in local issues on the town council. I agree that allotments could be self managed if there was demand, and I agree that the xmas lights could be farmed out too. But there would still be the need for a parish functionality of some kind. The best way to force change is by standing up and trying to help make it happen by getting elected.

Simon, you have my support with allotments, and as you know I'm happy to sit down with you at any point to help put together a strong proposal to put forward tothe council. I just don't feel that I can support complete de-parishing.

Point well made Richard, and as it happens I do agree.

I believe more in parish councils than any other branch of the state, and I especially believe in their central role in community life, empowering, energising, and enabling. It's the damndest thing but I've always believed that a parish council with it's democratic machinery and statutory accountability is actually a safer pair of hands to hold the allotment service than a fully devolved service.

The problem is that Newbury Town Council is out of control and that does limit the options. I don't want to see Newbury de-parished, but I do want to see it behaving legitimately, and I don't see the current regeime making that choice for themselves.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 11:13 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 23 2011, 08:37 PM) *
It's a miracle!!

I do them to order.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2011, 11:18 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 22 2011, 11:42 PM) *
Yes, and you can start by coming up with a thread more interesting. Something about capitol punishment, severe gaols, ASBOs, gassing paedos, immigration and the like should suit you.

Just spotted that - must have missed it!

Very good laugh.gif

(PS Thought you were in retirement?)

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 11:19 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 23 2011, 11:18 PM) *
Just spotted that - must have missed it!

Very good laugh.gif

(PS Thought you were in retirement?)


He will never be in retirement! Iommi and others live for this forum.... wink.gif

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 11:20 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 23 2011, 11:13 PM) *
I do them to order.


How do I get one?

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2011, 11:22 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 24 2011, 12:19 AM) *
He will never be in retirement! Iommi and others live for this forum.... wink.gif

Do you think he's come back as another alias? wink.gif

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 11:24 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 23 2011, 11:22 PM) *
Do you think he's come back as another alias? wink.gif


Oh proberly, everyone else seems to be..........

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2011, 11:26 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 24 2011, 12:24 AM) *
Oh proberly, everyone else seems to be..........

There's only one of me.

Yes I know - Thank goodness most will say! tongue.gif

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 11:33 PM

[quote name='Biker1' date='Feb 23 2011, 11:26 PM' post='36009']
There's only one of me.

Yes I know - Thank goodness most will say! tongue.gif
[/quot
Me too, all this pretending to be other people s h i t is becming boring dry.gif I still say lets all meet up for a serious debate....in the pub!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 11:36 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 23 2011, 11:33 PM) *
Me too, all this pretending to be other people s h i t is becming boring dry.gif I still say lets all meet up for a serious debate....in the pub!

I couldn't afford the rounds with you! wink.gif


Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2011, 11:38 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 24 2011, 12:33 AM) *
I still say lets all meet up for a serious debate....in the pub!

I'd say OK but you frighten me a bit! wink.gif

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 11:38 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2011, 11:36 PM) *
I couldn't afford the rounds with you! wink.gif




laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 11:38 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 23 2011, 11:38 PM) *
I'd say OK but you frighten me a bit! wink.gif


What!! Why?!!! As if.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 11:39 PM

Yes, the forums matriarch.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2011, 11:40 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 24 2011, 12:36 AM) *
I couldn't afford the rounds with you! wink.gif


Much more enjoyable than talking about b l o o d y allotments!

Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 23 2011, 11:42 PM

I don't bite sad.gif

Posted by: Iommi Feb 23 2011, 11:44 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 23 2011, 11:40 PM) *
Much more enjoyable than talking about b l o o d y allotments!

Remind me to ruin your threads with meaningless drivel, but then you never start anything worthwhile. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Iommi Feb 23 2011, 11:46 PM

QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 23 2011, 11:42 PM) *
I don't bite sad.gif

!!! I can read! laugh.gif

Posted by: panda Feb 23 2011, 11:52 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 23 2011, 09:39 PM) *
Point well made Richard, and as it happens I do agree.

I believe more in parish councils than any other branch of the state, and I especially believe in their central role in community life, empowering, energising, and enabling. It's the damndest thing but I've always believed that a parish council with it's democratic machinery and statutory accountability is actually a safer pair of hands to hold the allotment service than a fully devolved service.

The problem is that Newbury Town Council is out of control and that does limit the options. I don't want to see Newbury de-parished, but I do want to see it behaving legitimately, and I don't see the current regeime making that choice for themselves.

Newbury Town Council out of control?? Your the one out of control.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 23 2011, 11:54 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 11:52 PM) *
Newbury Town Council out of control?? Your the one out of control.

And don't we love it! laugh.gif

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2011, 11:55 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 24 2011, 01:44 AM) *
Remind me to ruin your threads with meaningless drivel,

Seeing as we are getting personal here in your usual style - you usually do!
(And everyone else's!)

Posted by: Iommi Feb 23 2011, 11:58 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 23 2011, 11:55 PM) *
Seeing as we are getting personal here in your usual style - you usually do!
(And everyone else's!)

So you might know how it feels? Anyway, where's my pension book...

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 24 2011, 12:20 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 24 2011, 12:40 AM) *
Much more enjoyable than talking about b l o o d y allotments!

This comment was unnecessary and I apologise unreservedly.

I fully appreciate this subject is of interest to some and has a right to be aired here.

Sorry. sad.gif

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 24 2011, 08:39 AM

I'd suggest a meeting in the pub too, but I fear I'd be the only one turning up!!!

Posted by: massifheed Feb 24 2011, 09:27 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 24 2011, 08:39 AM) *
I'd suggest a meeting in the pub too, but I fear I'd be the only one turning up!!!


I'm saying nothing. wink.gif

Posted by: blackdog Feb 24 2011, 08:39 PM

Which pub and when?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 24 2011, 08:45 PM

I'm certainly going for a drink after the hydro meeting on Monday evening. Hog's Head?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 25 2011, 08:41 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 24 2011, 08:45 PM) *
I'm certainly going for a drink after the hydro meeting on Monday evening. Hog's Head?


Sounds good. If I can get back in time, I'll do both.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 25 2011, 08:42 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 24 2011, 08:39 PM) *
Which pub and when?


Whenever. A forum meet up would be a laugh.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 25 2011, 10:55 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 25 2011, 08:42 AM) *
Whenever. A forum meet up would be a laugh.

Hillarious

Posted by: Bofem Feb 25 2011, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (panda @ Feb 23 2011, 11:52 PM) *
Newbury Town Council out of control?? Your the one out of control.


Out of control's a bit strong, though they've been close to it with this awful vendetta. There's some similarities with the Town Centre Partnership, in that they end up doing lots of what we don't want and not much of what we do. Although one is elected and the other is not, both groups tend to go on the offensive if criticised.

Who asked for the Clocktower to be lit up?
Who asked for solar panels on the town hall roof?
Who asked for a promotional video?

The problem is the demise of public service ethos. This is how you end up with a parish council with 20 staff that costs Newbury £1m a year.


Posted by: Rosewinelover Feb 25 2011, 01:22 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Feb 25 2011, 01:04 PM) *
Out of control's a bit strong, though they've been close to it with this awful vendetta. There's some similarities with the Town Centre Partnership, in that they end up doing lots of what we don't want and not much of what we do. Although one is elected and the other is not, both groups tend to go on the offensive if criticised.

Who asked for the Clocktower to be lit up?
Who asked for solar panels on the town hall roof?
Who asked for a promotional video?

The problem is the demise of public service ethos. This is how you end up with a parish council with 20 staff that costs Newbury £1m a year.


You replied to the panda...you brave person.... wink.gif Do you know how much trouble that caused me the other day?! tongue.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 14 2011, 09:00 PM

The Town Council maintain notice boards on all six of their allotment sites but they haven't posted their press release. Having gone to the trouble of making a press-release that is really only interesting if you have an allotment it would have made a lot of sense to post it where allotmenteers are going to read it.

Unless of course the Council don't want other allotmenteers knowing what they've done.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 07:42 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 14 2011, 09:00 PM) *
The Town Council maintain notice boards on all six of their allotment sites but they haven't posted their press release. Having gone to the trouble of making a press-release that is really only interesting if you have an allotment it would have made a lot of sense to post it where allotmenteers are going to read it.

Unless of course the Council don't want other allotmenteers knowing what they've done.


It's just silly games Simon. Did you complain about it?

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 15 2011, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 14 2011, 09:00 PM) *
The Town Council maintain notice boards on all six of their allotment sites but they haven't posted their press release. Having gone to the trouble of making a press-release that is really only interesting if you have an allotment it would have made a lot of sense to post it where allotmenteers are going to read it.

Unless of course the Council don't want other allotmenteers knowing what they've done.


Speaks volumes about NTC doesn't it? wink.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 15 2011, 11:07 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 15 2011, 07:19 PM) *
Speaks volumes about NTC doesn't it? wink.gif

Yes, I think it does.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 24 2011, 12:06 PM

I have asked the Council for the minute of the 10 February sub-committee that decided not to persue the rent arrears but to serve notice to quit. I need to see the minute because it creates the legal authority for the council to terminate my tenancy agreement, and it would be helpful to see their official decision.

The Council have refused to let me see the minutes.

QUOTE
The first resolution in the meeting was: RESOLVED: That under Section 1, Paragraph 2 of The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 the press and public be excluded from the meeting (apart from legal and officer support) for the following items of business because publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the private legal argument nature of the business to be transacted.

I cannot therefore supply you with a copy of the minutes.


It's true that the press and public can be excluded from a parish council meeting, but I believe I have an absolute right to see parish council minutes under http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/70/section/228 and that it is an offence for the Council to refuse to let me have a true copy. Any idea how I enforce my right?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 24 2011, 01:20 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 24 2011, 12:06 PM) *
I have asked the Council for the minute of the 10 February sub-committee that decided not to persue the rent arrears but to serve notice to quit. I need to see the minute because it creates the legal authority for the council to terminate my tenancy agreement, and it would be helpful to see their official decision.

The Council have refused to let me see the minutes.



It's true that the press and public can be excluded from a parish council meeting, but I believe I have an absolute right to see parish council minutes under http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/70/section/228 and that it is an offence for the Council to refuse to let me have a true copy. Any idea how I enforce my right?


Legally I would expect?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2011, 02:09 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 24 2011, 01:20 PM) *
Legally I would expect?

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 24 2011, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 24 2011, 01:20 PM) *
Legally I would expect?

Can you say any more specifically? The LGA makes it an offence to refuse access, so do I go to the police? Does the Information Commissioner have the power to order the Council to release the minutes?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 24 2011, 04:07 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 24 2011, 02:14 PM) *
Can you say any more specifically? The LGA makes it an offence to refuse access, so do I go to the police? Does the Information Commissioner have the power to order the Council to release the minutes?


Who did you request it from? If you request it from the chief exec, he should include details of what steps are available should you not be happy with their decision.

Alternative, seek a court order to release the documents. As the minutes refer to you specifically, they have to disclose them to you on request I would say.

Posted by: Bofem Mar 24 2011, 04:26 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 24 2011, 02:14 PM) *
Can you say any more specifically? The LGA makes it an offence to refuse access, so do I go to the police? Does the Information Commissioner have the power to order the Council to release the minutes?


Yes. I believe Local Government Ombudsman doesn't look after parish councils, and the Standards Board of West Berkshire (which used to do it) is being wound up I think. So I'd go for Information Commissioner.

But let me get this straight.....the council who issue press releases about you won't let you know the rationale behind their decision to throw you off your allotment?

If so, then keep going Simon. I feel sure that heads must roll soon. mellow.gif







Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 24 2011, 04:37 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Mar 24 2011, 04:26 PM) *
But let me get this straight.....the council who issue press releases about you won't let you know the rationale behind their decision to throw you off your allotment?

I know, it's bonkers - The Council officer told me:
QUOTE
I cannot therefore supply you with a copy of the minutes. However the outcome of the meeting was as reported in our public statement as published at: http://www.newbury.gov.uk/News/News%202011/publicstatement-allotmentdispute.pdf

So why withold the minutes, unless they don't tell quite the same story as the press release.

I have asked the Council to review their decision, and after that I am able to go to the Information Commissioner if the document isn't released.

Posted by: HJD Mar 26 2011, 12:45 PM

Don't start singing on your allotment Simon or you could be right in the s***. Check this out. rolleyes.gif

http://www.wilson-nesbitt.co.uk/articles/2425/25032011/singing_gardener_silenced_by_neighbours.html

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 26 2011, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (HJD @ Mar 26 2011, 12:45 PM) *
Don't start singing on your allotment Simon or you could be right in the s***. Check this out. rolleyes.gif

http://www.wilson-nesbitt.co.uk/articles/2425/25032011/singing_gardener_silenced_by_neighbours.html

It's happened already. I organised a Big Lunch on site in 2009 and the Falkland Shed Collective Ale Voice Choir performed What Shall We Do With The Drunken Gardener, and yes, the Council complained - four voices and a squeeze-box, no amps or anything.

Posted by: user23 Mar 26 2011, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 26 2011, 01:28 PM) *
It's happened already. I organised a Big Lunch on site in 2009 and the Falkland Shed Collective Ale Voice Choir performed What Shall We Do With The Drunken Gardener, and yes, the Council complained - four voices and a squeeze-box, no amps or anything.
Don't most people spend time on their allotment for a bit of peace and quiet?

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 26 2011, 01:50 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 26 2011, 01:30 PM) *
Don't most people spend time on their allotment for a bit of peace and quiet?


Only from the Missus! wink.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 26 2011, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 26 2011, 01:30 PM) *
Don't most people spend time on their allotment for a bit of peace and quiet?

We had the Council's permission and everything, and there were quite a few of us and it is our allotments after all. But as I understand it the complaint was made on behalf of a site neighbour, though to be honest I think it was the Council just making a bit of mischief.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 26 2011, 05:34 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 26 2011, 04:42 PM) *
We had the Council's permission and everything, and there were quite a few of us and it is our allotments after all. But as I understand it the complaint was made on behalf of a site neighbour, though to be honest I think it was the Council just making a bit of mischief.


Ah but did you not invite the local councillors? They like to be in on the free lunches you know and to be able to claim more expenses. Perhaps you should grow some bamboo so that you can try and sweeten the dreaded Panda. rolleyes.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)