NTC consider allotment rent increase enforcement Options

[Richard Garvie]

Reading both sides I'd say the problem is that both of you think you are right & neither is willing to back down.

You musy have know rent reviews were going to happen. Claiming that they are unfair because they take place without giving an allotment holder the right to terminate their rental seems could be viewed as kicking up a fuss over a technicality that has been accepted for years.

Add the fact that allotment spaces are rather sought after....

There are a number of people having a pop at Simon for fighting for something he believes in. Even if you think he is wrong, he is still entitled to have his say. Likewise, the council believe they are right and have suggested that if anyone should want to propose self management, they will listen to any idea if it saves the council a bit of money.

My own view would be that if this is to avoid going to court, all parties need to be locked into a room until they agree either way or somewhere in the middle. If this goes to court, it's going to cost the taxpayer, and at a time when people are having a pop about Christmas Lights and such like, I think that with a bit of humility and an open mind heading into a group discussion, maybe court action could be avoided.

My final point would be that this argument has become very personal. I wasn't aware that Cll Fenn had asked what she did at the council meeting, and as it could be suggested that their is a little history between Cllr Fenn and Simon, that line of questioning is unacceptable. If she has used her position as a councillor to influence other elected members regarding Simon as a person because of personal differences, that is morally wrong (never mind legally?).

I really hope there is a suitable conclusion on Monday night, I may even come along. Do you have to register to speak Simon?

[dannyboy]

There must be more to it than simply opting for self management = saving the council £100k.

If that were the case, the allotment management would have been farmed out years ago.

[Richard Garvie]

I think it needs to be researched and if viable, a full proposal worked out and presented to the council. If there are significant savings to be had, there is no reason not to go to self managed sites, providing everyone is in agreement that they want to self manage.

[dannyboy]

I think it needs to be researched and if viable, a full proposal worked out and presented to the council. If there are significant savings to be had, there is no reason not to go to self managed sites, providing everyone is in agreement that they want to self manage.

The council does not need it 'presented to them'. They know where saving could be made. If the allotments were one of them, they would have done it.

[Simon Kirby]

There must be more to it than simply opting for self management = saving the council £100k.

If that were the case, the allotment management would have been farmed out years ago.

Well you tell me? Even if there was a sniff of a chance of saving £100k, wouldn't you have expected a couple of councillors to have come and talked to me about it?

It's certainly strange that the Council would resolve not to recognise the Wash Common site association whilst self-management was an implicit aim. And that only just scratches the surface.

For me it's not so difficult to understand when you realise self-management is not saving the council £100k, it's saving the tax-payer £100k. For the Council there's no up-side. Allotments are a £125k turnover business, so why would the Council want to lose that business. Almost no one knows who the Town Council are and even less know that NTC levy whatever precept they want, so there's pretty much zero pressure to save money. The Councillors want to be important and allotments is a big chunk of what NTC does, and if you're an allotment site steward too and get your plot free there's even less incentive to lose your personal control. For the officers, those that don't lose their jobs end up working in a smaller council with less prestige and staff and they'll end up taking a pay cut, and if the rot isn't stopped who knows what other services people will start doing for themselves, and before long NTC will be just a parish council with a part time-clerk, very much like other parish councils.

[dannyboy]

Well you tell me? Even if there was a sniff of a chance of saving £100k, wouldn't you have expected a couple of councillors to have come and talked to me about it?

It's certainly strange that the Council would resolve not to recognise the Wash Common site association whilst self-management was an implicit aim. And that only just scratches the surface.

For me it's not so difficult to understand when you realise self-management is not saving the council £100k, it's saving the tax-payer £100k. For the Council there's no up-side. Allotments are a £125k turnover business, so why would the Council want to lose that business. Almost no one knows who the Town Council are and even less know that NTC levy whatever precept they want, so there's pretty much zero pressure to save money. The Councillors want to be important and allotments is a big chunk of what NTC does, and if you're an allotment site steward too and get your plot free there's even less incentive to lose your personal control. For the officers, those that don't lose their jobs end up working in a smaller council with less prestige and staff and they'll end up taking a pay cut, and if the rot isn't stopped who knows what other services people will start doing for themselves, and before long NTC will be just a parish council with a part time-clerk, very much like other parish councils.

There is your answer then. For NTC the allotments make money. Money that would have to be found elsewhere should the allotment revenue be lost. For me, as a none allotment holding tax payer it makes no odds.

[Richard Garvie]

Danny, I actually think if you look at the figures, allotments cost us money. I believe part of the reason for the increase in rent is to make sure that those who don't have allotments are not subsidising those who do.

There is examples where self managed sites have saved money for the council, but then there are other sites where self managing has gone seriously wrong!!!

[dannyboy]

Danny, I actually think if you look at the figures, allotments cost us money. I believe part of the reason for the increase in rent is to make sure that those who don't have allotments are not subsidising those who do.

There is examples where self managed sites have saved money for the council, but then there are other sites where self managing has gone seriously wrong!!!

Everything the council does we foot the bill for!


My guess is that the allotments create a surplus for NTC, a surplus why do not wish to lose.

[Simon Kirby]

Everything the council does we foot the bill for!


My guess is that the allotments create a surplus for NTC, a surplus why do not wish to lose.

Take a look at this. It's the breakdown of NTC's precept that WBC collect for the Town Council with your council tax.

See the 'Allotments' service? £3.43 is the nett cost to the average council tax payer for the allotment service. That's the nett cost, it's already had the revenue taken off it.

But that's not all.

See the 'Administration' service? Well, administration isn't a service, it's another cost of providing the actual services, so you have to apportion that to the services to see what they really cost. That's another £1.56 for the allotments.

See the 'Town Hall Running Costs', 'Civic Duties', 'Committee Expenditure', 'Newbury Young People's Council', and 'Grants'. None of these things are services either, they're things the Council does to support the services it provides or just because it's a big Town Council and it can. If you want to see the true commercial cost of providing the allotment service then you also need to apportion these overheads and their associated administration to the true services. That's another £2.72.

So the nett cost of the allotment service to the average tax payer is £7.71. That's a total bill to the Newbury tax payer of £97,167. That's nett, the service turnover is £114,667, and the cost is offset by revenue of £17,500. If the Council self-managed their allotments the tax payer would save £97,167.

[dannyboy]

Take a look at this. It's the breakdown of NTC's precept that WBC collect for the Town Council with your council tax.

See the 'Allotments' service? £3.43 is the nett cost to the average council tax payer for the allotment service. That's the nett cost, it's already had the revenue taken off it.

But that's not all.

See the 'Administration' service? Well, administration isn't a service, it's another cost of providing the actual services, so you have to apportion that to the services to see what they really cost. That's another £1.56 for the allotments.

See the 'Town Hall Running Costs', 'Civic Duties', 'Committee Expenditure', 'Newbury Young People's Council', and 'Grants'. None of these things are services either, they're things the Council does to support the services it provides or just because it's a big Town Council and it can. If you want to see the true commercial cost of providing the allotment service then you also need to apportion these overheads and their associated administration to the true services. That's another £2.72.

So the nett cost of the allotment service to the average tax payer is £7.71. That's a total bill to the Newbury tax payer of £97,167. That's nett, the service turnover is £114,667, and the cost is offset by revenue of £17,500. If the Council self-managed their allotments the tax payer would save £97,167.

If the allotmtns were self run do you really think my Council Tax bill would drop by £7.71

[Simon Kirby]

If the allotmtns were self run do you really think my Council Tax bill would drop by £7.71

Yes, if you're on band D. Of course, it'll be a cold day in Hull before the Council let that happen.

[Simon Kirby]

I got a fair hearing and Cllr Johnson was very accomodating and let me make my argument and even come back in on the discussion, but the Council didn't uphold my complaint.

[Richard Garvie]

As long as you got a fair crack of the whip, that's the main thing. What happens now?

[Simon Kirby]

What happens now?

I guess we all trapes off over to the county court in Reading now.

[Richard Garvie]

Will they not do it in Newbury?

[blackdog]

Will they not do it in Newbury?

Haven't had a County Court in Newbury for years.

[Missus]

Is SK's money saving suggestion that Newbury should dispense with the up-keep of the Town Hall, the Mayor, the Committees, the provision of a voice for the the youth of Newbury and Grants to local organisations in order to keep allotment costs down? If NTC are doing these things "just because they can", doesn't providing allotments fall into this category too?

[Simon Kirby]

Is SK's money saving suggestion that Newbury should dispense with the up-keep of the Town Hall, the Mayor, the Committees, the provision of a voice for the the youth of Newbury and Grants to local organisations in order to keep allotment costs down?

I want allotment self-management because of the social benefit to the allotmenteers of us managing the service for ourselves, because we get to choose for ourselves how to develop our service, because it generates money for capital investment, and because it keeps our rents managable.

Personally I wouldn't mind too much if self-management cost the tax-payer more because I think the extra social benefit, both on site and in the wider community, would be worth the extra money. As it happens self-management actually saves the tax-payer money and that's handy for me because generally it's difficult to articulate the social-benefit argument, but everyone understands the bottom line. Self-management saves £100k.

That £100k saving is just a consequence of devolving the allotment service. The allotment service is about 16% of what the Council does, so if it's to provide 16% less services then it's not unreasonable to expect to see all of the non-service stuff it spends our money on contract similarly. Rather than wave my hands vaguely I've given some specific examples of where those savings would come from.

Dispense with the up-keep of the Town Hall: the town hall isn't a service, essentially it's office accomodation, and with 16% less to do I expect to see a 16% saving in that accomodation. I wouldn't be unhappy to see the building sold off and the town council relocated to an office on New Greenham Park.

The Mayor: Shave 16% off the £60-odd grand we spend on the civic budget and we'd still have a perfectly servicable mayor, though I'd be very happy to save all of that and become a parish council.

The Committees: You have to delve into the accounts to see exactly what comes under this head, but yes, without the allotments to worry about it's not unreasonable to amalgamate the arts and leisure committee into the community services committee and save 16% of the head.

The provision of a voice for the the youth of Newbury: Oh p-lease. The Youth Council has nothing to do with empowering our youth, it gives a few individuals the aspirations to control their peers just like their senior cousins, and that's altogether unhealthy. Scrap it, and give us all - youths and otherwise - responsibility for ourselves.

Grants to local organisations: I'm not entirely sure how it is the Town Council think they know better than me where I want to make charitable donations of my own money so I'd seriously think about scrapping this altogether, but as it is I've suggested a few of the most inappropriate items to trim the budget.

If NTC are doing these things "just because they can", doesn't providing allotments fall into this category too?

Funily enough allotments are the only thing parish councils are under a positive duty to provide (Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908), absolutely everything else is optional.

[Richard Garvie]

Haven't had a County Court in Newbury for years.

They do have a county court:

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCou...do?court_id=420

[Missus]

Perhaps NTC should cut all other services and just concentrate on allotments as SK wants. No cemeteries would be needed as burials could take place on allotments, children could play between the rows of cabbages instead of in playgrounds and the Mayor could share SK's shed. The Town Hall could be sold off and turned into bedsits for more "affordable housing". Just out of interest, may I ask how much it is you pay for your allotment, to justify such contempt for the council ?