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

[Cognosco]

I hope you will indulge me if I make this post again. There's quite a bit at stake for the town here as allotment self-management could save a significant amount of public money, and set a precedent for saving very much more along similar lines. I suggest we ignore the trolls now. I'm making some very specific recommendations to progress self-management and without dwelling on the issues at NTC I believe it will be necessary for a number of us here to put these proposals to the Council together to ensure that the Council implement the initiative. I would be very pleased to see what you think of the approach and know whether you would be prepared to support the proposals publicly. Thanks. Here it is again:

How to migrate Newbury's sites towards self-management, and is it the right thing to do?

The how is easy enough because it's a common enough thing that the process has been studied and best-practice published - see for example Gardeners in Charge from the Allotments Regeneration Initiative.

Newbury is currently at the dependence stage, and the road-map to self-management takes us through participation, delegation, semi-autonomy, and finally to autonomous self-management which is free from any state involvement.

In order to have the capacity and enthusiasm to migrate to autonomous self-management it's pretty much necessary to follow the road-map, and as each stage is stable with meaningful advantages for the allotmenteers it's only really helpful to think about how to get to the next stage. So: how to get to participation, and is it the right thing to do?

Participation:

• There is a site representative and plotholders informally accept responsibility for minor maintenance works.
• There might be a mechanism by which the plotholders or site representatives can be consulted on capital expenditure and repairs by the allotment authority.
• There is no written devolved management agreement between the plotholders and the allotment authority.

So these are the specific changes that NTC need to make to get us to participation:

• All sites encouraged to form a democratic site association independent of the Council.
• Site associations encouraged to cut the grass on the common areas.
• Allotment Stewards appointed by the site association.
• NTC constitute a joint council/association consultative panel.

And the question about whether it's the right thing to do is easy: yes, or course it is. Even if it leads no further towards self-management, this kind of allotmenteer involvement is healthy and benign, but it builds participation and capacity to migrate further towards self-management. And after a reasonable period it would be natural to think about migrating a little further towards self-management, but only when participation was embedded and stable.

As a taxpayer it makes sense to me Simon.

To make it difficult for the council to deny though I believe it requires more tenants to come forward with you rather than just the taxpayers who are not tenants. Is there no way to get more tenants on board with you?

[Andy Capp]

I am open minded on the subject. I would like to know the true facts. What we have here is only Simon Kirby facts and thart to me is worth nothing. I think all he is concerned about is snubbing the council and nothing else. I would like real facts not made up ones.

How can you justify coming to the conclusion that the facts Simon Kirkby has posted are made up without having knowledge that refutes them?

How can Simon Kirkby have any effect on whether self management in principle is a good idea or not?

[Andy Capp]

As a taxpayer it makes sense to me Simon.

To make it difficult for the council to deny though I believe it requires more tenants to come forward with you rather than just the taxpayers who are not tenants. Is there no way to get more tenants on board with you?

The problem we the tax payer have, is that the council are demonstrably against self management.

[dannyboy]

The problem we the tax payer have, is that the council are demonstrably against self management.

Isn't it more a catch 22 situation?

[panda]

How can you justify coming to the conclusion that the facts Simon Kirkby has posted are made up without having knowledge that refutes them?

How can Simon Kirkby have any effect on whether self management in principle is a good idea or not?

So why is it that you believe a person you haven't even met. Can i just say his name is KIRBY.

[Cognosco]

Isn't it more a catch 22 situation?

No just the usual for Newbury; local authority not representing the taxpayer?

[Andy Capp]

So why is it that you believe a person you haven't even met. Can i just say his name is KIRBY.

Yes you may.

Believe him? What is there to believe or not? He's prepared to post data for peer review. That gives it some kudos and an opportunity for us to debate it.

[panda]

Yes you may.

Believe him? What is there to believe or not? He's prepared to post data for peer review. That gives it some kudos and an opportunity for us to debate it.

His figures are all made up. if you look back at his posts, the figures that he produces are always different. that is one of the reasons that i dont trust him.

[panda]

The other thing is, if this project is so good, why does he find it so hard to find support from allotment tenents.

[Andy Capp]

His figures are all made up. if you look back at his posts, the figures that he produces are always different. that is one of the reasons that i dont trust him.

If this was a thread to determine Simon Kirby's integrity, I could see where you are coming from, but I believe it is not.

My view is that there is potentially getting on for £40k to be saved by self management. That is good enough for me. Whether Simon Kirby goes on to post data that wrongly shows the council in bad light, is unimportant to me; is it to you?

The other thing is, if this project is so good, why does he find it so hard to find support from allotment tenents.

For the tax payer, I'm not sure that it is important at this stage.

[panda]

If this was a thread to determine Simon Kirby's integrity, I could see where you are coming from, but I believe it is not.

My view is that there is potentially getting on for £40k to be saved by self management. That is good enough for me. Whether Simon Kirby goes on to post data that wrongly shows the council in bad light, is unimportant to me; is it to you?


For the tax payer, I'm not sure that it is important at this stage.

Tenents are tax payer's too. I think they should have there say. You can't just ignore tenents and there views on this.

[Simon Kirby]

I believe the debate is much simplified with a step-wise road-map to self-management, and these are my specific proposals to take the first step to participation.

• All sites encouraged to form a democratic site association independent of the Council.
• Site associations encouraged to cut the grass on the common areas.
• Allotment Stewards appointed by the site association.
• NTC constitute a joint council/association consultative panel.

It's hard to argue that these changes are not in the allotmenteers' interest so there is no requirement for an allotmenteer mandate, but the changes will begin to create the structures and empowerment that will enable the allotmenteers to make an informed decision on any further migration towards self-management.

[panda]

I believe the debate is much simplified with a step-wise road-map to self-management, and these are my specific proposals to take the first step to participation.

• All sites encouraged to form a democratic site association independent of the Council.
• Site associations encouraged to cut the grass on the common areas.
• Allotment Stewards appointed by the site association.
• NTC constitute a joint council/association consultative panel.

It's hard to argue that these changes are not in the allotmenteers' interest so there is no requirement for an allotmenteer mandate, but the changes will begin to create the structures and empowerment that will enable the allotmenteers to make an informed decision on any further migration towards self-management.

The problem is they are your proposals, your ideas. They are the things you want. I think we should have ideas that everyone wants, that would be much fairer.

[Andy Capp]

Tenents are tax payer's too. I think they should have there say. You can't just ignore tenents and there views on this.

Can I say it's TENANTS

In times of austerity, being ignored has happened to less deserving people. I think allotmenteers should have an input, but shouldn't be the sole reason self management is overlooked.

In principle: either pay more rent, or take on some of the council's liabilities. I favour self management because it is not based on the allotmenteer's ability to pay.

[Andy Capp]

The problem is they are your proposals, your ideas. They are the things you want. I think we should have ideas that everyone wants, that would be much fairer.

Where do you disagree with his proposal? Where is the proposal unfair?

[Simon Kirby]

Can I say it's TENANTS

In times of austerity, being ignored has happened to less deserving people. I think allotmenteers should have an input, but shouldn't be the sole reason self management is overlooked.

In principle: either pay more rent, or take on some of the council's liabilities. I favour self management because it is not based on the allotmenteer's ability to pay.

Andy, the proposal comes right out of the best-practice manual. Do you think it needs an allotmenteer mandate? It would be inane to allow the Council to prevaricate for a year over consulting their allotmenteers over whether they wanted a consultative framework, wouldn't it be reasonable to move with all haste to participation.

[NWNREADER]

The problem is they are your proposals, your ideas. They are the things you want. I think we should have ideas that everyone wants, that would be much fairer.

I don't know about fairer, I should think that objective is all but impossible!!!

If no-one comes forward with any ideas nothing ever changes. the case seems to have moved on from SM as a way for the allotments to be run (support from the tenants) to a way for NTC to reduce its cost base (support from NTC taxpayers).
I suspect the latter will be more likely to bring about a change, and is probably a better reason for change anyway!

[Andy Capp]

I suppose it might be a good idea to think about what tangible reasons there might be for keeping the status quo?

For starters:

1. Do the council have the time and resources to properly consider self management?
2. Would there be legal and financial ramifications should a dispute occur between an allotment and an outside party; like neighbours or commercial concerns?
3. Would there be legal and financial ramifications should the council decide self management doesn't work?

Simon, what would you say is/are the biggest cons for self management. Worst case scenario stuff if you like?

[Simon Kirby]

I suppose it might be a good idea to think about what tangible reasons there might be for keeping the status quo?

For starters:

1. Do the council have the time and resources to properly consider self management?
2. Would there be legal and financial ramifications should a dispute occur between an allotment and an outside party; like neighbours or commercial concerns?
3. Would there be legal and financial ramifications should the council decide self management doesn't work?

Simon, what would you say is/are the biggest cons for self management. Worst case scenario stuff if you like?

I think you have in mind independent self-management. It has its challenges, but it's like eating an elephant, you do it in small pieces.

The move to participation makes no greater demands on the Council than at present because the Council already meets quarterly with its oppointed stewards, so the only change there is that the meeting would be with association delegates. In practice encouraging sites to form site associations involves the Council in nothing more than allowing the association to nominate the steward.

Participation has it's benefits and is worth getting to even if it progresses no further, and it doesn't help to think about the transition to delegation until we're at participation.

To answer you question though: the biggest challenge an allotment site always faces is a decline in the allotment movement, and everything else pales besides that. Historically interest in the movement has been cyclical, and although interest is currently supposedly high, there are only some 300,000 plots in the country as against the 1,500,000 at the peak of the movement so it's not clear whether this is a resurgence of interest, or a dead-cat bounce.

There aren't any disadvantages to self-management as against council-management. The usual difficulties encountered with both are the same - lack of interest and despotism. The advantages to self-management are that the sites are more frequently well managed and maintained and self-managed sites on the whole have better resources because lower admin costs make more money available for capital investment and funding is easier for self-managed sites than council sites.

The one advantage the council has over the allotments federation is that the Council has the power under the allotments act to compulsorily rent land at a fair market rent so in principle council shouldn't have any problem creating new allotment sites to satisfy demand, whereas an allotments federation will always struggle to find land. in practice councils can't be asked to use their powers so it makes no odds.

[Cognosco]

I think you have in mind independent self-management. It has its challenges, but it's like eating an elephant, you do it in small pieces.

The move to participation makes no greater demands on the Council than at present because the Council already meets quarterly with its oppointed stewards, so the only change there is that the meeting would be with association delegates. In practice encouraging sites to form site associations involves the Council in nothing more than allowing the association to nominate the steward.

Participation has it's benefits and is worth getting to even if it progresses no further, and it doesn't help to think about the transition to delegation until we're at participation.

To answer you question though: the biggest challenge an allotment site always faces is a decline in the allotment movement, and everything else pales besides that. Historically interest in the movement has been cyclical, and although interest is currently supposedly high, there are only some 300,000 plots in the country as against the 1,500,000 at the peak of the movement so it's not clear whether this is a resurgence of interest, or a dead-cat bounce.

There aren't any disadvantages to self-management as against council-management. The usual difficulties encountered with both are the same - lack of interest and despotism. The advantages to self-management are that the sites are more frequently well managed and maintained and self-managed sites on the whole have better resources because lower admin costs make more money available for capital investment and funding is easier for self-managed sites than council sites.

The one advantage the council has over the allotments federation is that the Council has the power under the allotments act to compulsorily rent land at a fair market rent so in principle council shouldn't have any problem creating new allotment sites to satisfy demand, whereas an allotments federation will always struggle to find land. in practice councils can't be asked to use their powers so it makes no odds.

Unless pressure is put on the council to move this forward then I can see this not going very far very quickly.
For obvious reasons the council do not want to relinquish their hold on the allotments regardless of the potential for savings on expenditure for the taxpayer?