Allotment Charges Options

[Simon Kirby]

NTC recently decided their service charges for 2012-13, and once again the allotment service saw a hefty increase, more than any other service. This deserves some analysis.

This is how the cost of an NTC allotment has increased compared to the cost of the NTC senior football pitch hire:


This shows that the cost of an NTC allotment has increased by 135% in eight years, whereas the cost of the senior pitch hire has increased by just 29% over the same period. Of course this wouldn't be unreasonable if the allotment service had historically received a disproportionately high level of subsidy, but in fact the opposite is true. Comparing revenues with running costs the tax-payer subsidises around 90% of the cost of providing the football pitches and changing facilities, whereas the subsidy for allotments has been around 50%, falling to 20% at present.


The significance of the level of subsidy is that it is unlawful for a council to discriminate in favour of one leisure service over another and councils are required to subsidise all leisure services by the same amount. However, NTC has a significant problem with the efficiency of its allotment service, with the full cost of the service provision now close on £100k and the Council is desperately worried about losing a £120k-turnover business to self-management which not only provides the service at zero cost to the tax-payer, but also provides a better service.

A recent study by the University of Leiscester reveals the average allotment cost nationally to be around £4.40/pole for the 2011 season, with only 12% of sites charging as much as Newbury's £6.94/pole. However, NTC would need to charge more than £44/pole to cover the full cost of providing the service, and £440 for a full plot is a nonsense and would exclude virtually everyone from working an allotment.

NTC were in the top 12% of councils nationally last year with a rate of 28p/m², and a superinflationary increase this year has done nothing to improve their position which is further let down by the poor quality of the service.

[NWNREADER]

Not an NTC resident, nor any interest in allotments, but I see Newbury is not the only area where the topic is raised:
Other complaints

[Simon Kirby]

Not an NTC resident, nor any interest in allotments, but I see Newbury is not the only area where the topic is raised:
Other complaints

Yes, NWN reports here about Kingsclere Parish Council having upset some of their allotmenteers with a 27% increase from £3.15/pole to £4.00/pole - Newbury charges £7.30/pole by comparison. The report also mentions that Basingstoke and Dean are likely to impose a superinflationary increase of 7.51% bringing their rents to £4.30/pole from £4.00/pole.

In the local BBC news last week was Eastleigh and District Allotments Association who are to mount a legal challenge to the lawfulness of Eastleigh Borough Council's 60% increase from (I think) £5.00/pole to £8.00/pole - that does put Eastleigh into the top 10% of council and makes a full plot £80 which is quite a lot to find for some allotmenteers, though they do give a 50% concession for pensioners.

A number of county and city councils like Brent and Ceredigion that you reference have been thinking about substantial rent increases because they're spending several hundred thousand pounds on their big allotment services and with their council tax capped they can't just swallow the cost with an increase in the precept like parish councils can. However, these councils often promote self-management because it saves the tax-payer a bundle, and like Cllr Brian Coleman of Barnet Council says: "To be honest, plot holders can run their own allotments a lot better than the council ever could."

[user23]

Why not set up your own self-managed allotments?

[Simon Kirby]

Why not set up your own self-managed allotments?

The problem is getting the land. I would very happily set up a private site if I could find someone to let me the land - I've asked around, and nothing doing. You know anyone?

[user23]

The problem is getting the land. I would very happily set up a private site if I could find someone to let me the land - I've asked around, and nothing doing. You know anyone?

Club together and get a mortgage or loan.

If you've got a sound business case and there's the demand you say there is then it should be a doddle.

[Cognosco]

Club together and get a mortgage or loan.

If you've got a sound business case and there's the demand you say there is then it should be a doddle.

Seems suspicious now that planning laws are being relaxed, to say the least, are councils deliberatley pricing allotmenteers out so that they can raise cash selling to the developers for building?

[Simon Kirby]

Club together and get a mortgage or loan.

If you've got a sound business case and there's the demand you say there is then it should be a doddle.

The problem isn't affording an agricultural rent, the problem is finding a landowner willing to let the land for allotments in the first place. It's also complicated by the fact that much land around Newbury is land-banked development land and developers certainly don't want established allotments with the bad publicity and planning difficulties that eventual eviction would entail. Councils have the power under the allotment acts to compel landowners to let land for allotments and they also have a duty to provide enough allotments so that anyone who wants one can have as big a plot as they want. The parish council is in most practical situations the only player in the position to acquire a new site unless there's a good reason for a developer to volunteer a site, as might possibly be the situation in Sandleford for example.

[user23]

The problem isn't affording an agricultural rent, the problem is finding a landowner willing to let the land for allotments in the first place. It's also complicated by the fact that much land around Newbury is land-banked development land and developers certainly don't want established allotments with the bad publicity and planning difficulties that eventual eviction would entail. Councils have the power under the allotment acts to compel landowners to let land for allotments and they also have a duty to provide enough allotments so that anyone who wants one can have as big a plot as they want. The parish council is in most practical situations the only player in the position to acquire a new site unless there's a good reason for a developer to volunteer a site, as might possibly be the situation in Sandleford for example.

Let the land? I'm talking about buying it.

[blackdog]

Club together and get a mortgage or loan.

If you've got a sound business case and there's the demand you say there is then it should be a doddle.

I would have thought it would be very difficult to buy land for allotments close enough to town to attract many allotmenteers. Any land close to town is going to be held on to by the owners until they can get it designated as building land. The last thing they want on their land is allotments.

[Simon Kirby]

Let the land? I'm talking about buying it.

Finding land to let is easier (though still prohibitively difficult) and you don't then have the difficulty of raising money to buy it, you just have to be sure to cover the rental from revenues.

[Cognosco]

I would have thought it would be very difficult to buy land for allotments close enough to town to attract many allotmenteers. Any land close to town is going to be held on to by the owners until they can get it designated as building land. The last thing they want on their land is allotments.

User knows this very well of course. The obvious answer is for self management to cut costs for taxpayers and allotmenteers alike. Why will the council not consider self management?

[Simon Kirby]

User knows this very well of course. The obvious answer is for self management to cut costs for taxpayers and allotmenteers alike. Why will the council not consider self management?

It's a £120k turnover business.

Look at what the council does ranked by turnover:

CODE

parks, open spaces, recreation grounds              28.9%
cemeteries                                          15.1%
allotments                                          10.4%
civic duties                                        10.1%
market                                              10.0%
christmas lights                                     5.7%
assets, war memorial, footway lighting, clock house  5.4%
floral displays                                      3.8%
neighbourhood warden scheme                          4.7%
grants                                               3.2%
WBC toilets                                          1.7%
Flood Alleviation Scheme                             0.9%

These are the things that make the councillors important, and the more important the council, the more the officers earn. Take away allotments and it'll collapse like a house of cards - market, chrimbo lights, civic duties, together that's more than a third of what the council does. If they're not careful Newbury Parish Council could be run by a part-time clerk from a kiosk in the park.

I asked the mayor again to discuss self-management at the last full council meeting. Surprisingly enough his reason for declining was not the same as I've just suggested. Cllr Beck said that self-management was only suitable for new allotments, and in any event Newbury's allotmenteers don't want it. I asked Jeff Beck for an oportunity to tell him about self-management and debunk some of the myths he's been told, but he wasn't that bothered.

I don't know where the thing about self-management being for new sites came from, but it has no foundation. It's an obvious Big Society thing for starters, and even the Local Government Association recommends that councils devolve their allotment services, and that's the organisation that represents local government.

The thing about Newbury's allotmenteers not wanting self-management is risible - just ask them! Put a question on the bottom of the bill - would you like an allotment society to maintain and administer your allotments, or would you like to pay £44/pole for the council to do it.

[Exhausted]

Couple of points that I'm sure you can clarify Simon. You say..
"The significance of the level of subsidy is that it is unlawful for a council to discriminate in favour of one leisure service over another and councils are required to subsidise all leisure services by the same amount."
Can one really say that an allotment is a leisure service in the same way that a playing field or park is. An allotment is for the benefit of one person on a private basis whereas the other two are for public/communal use.
You also suggest with your question...
"would you like an allotment society to maintain and administer your allotments, or would you like to pay £44/pole for the council to do it."
that if they self managed it would be free. Surely the cost would need to be identified. What's your best estimate of a price per pole for each allotmenteer including ground rent to NTC and management cost to the self management association.

[Ron]

So why should NTC 'give' land to a small group for free? Or are you proposing to pay NTC rent?

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

Another thread by Simon "Shedman" Kirby about allotments!

Although I can actually understand why you're annoyed, it's a bit expensive I must admit. The best thing would be to join together with other allotment owners and either buy the land outright and "rent" it back to yourselves or shout loudly enough so that it gets attention at town council.

[Penelope]

I kinda agree that the council tend to see allotmenteers as an easy target, costs should be the same (no less than) other forms of leasure. Why not ??

[Simon Kirby]

Couple of points that I'm sure you can clarify Simon. You say..
"The significance of the level of subsidy is that it is unlawful for a council to discriminate in favour of one leisure service over another and councils are required to subsidise all leisure services by the same amount."
Can one really say that an allotment is a leisure service in the same way that a playing field or park is. An allotment is for the benefit of one person on a private basis whereas the other two are for public/communal use.

That allotments are a leisure service just like football and swimming was one of the matters decided in Harwood v. Banstead and Reigate BC in 1981, along with the principle that a differential subsidy was unlawful.

You also suggest with your question...
"would you like an allotment society to maintain and administer your allotments, or would you like to pay £44/pole for the council to do it."
that if they self managed it would be free. Surely the cost would need to be identified. What's your best estimate of a price per pole for each allotmenteer including ground rent to NTC and management cost to the self management association.

No, you're right, it wouldn't be free. I know self-managed sites that charge as little as £2/pole and cover all of their costs without any other revenue, but £3/pole to £4/pole is typical, and my best estimate is that rents would need to be around the £5/pole level to cover the cost of some professional grounds maintenance while the capacity of the site associations to take on this work established. This is a typical cost, but I favour a charging scheme with a basic administration charge plus a rental element so bigger plots would effectively be cheaper, but smaller plots would still be affordable. I also favour an optional contribution which would allow those on limited incomes to have a cheaper plot without the intrusion of any kind of qualification test, and then as a charity we could claim back the tax on gift-aided contributions which also generates some useful income. If you're interested in the draft budget I can post it.

[Simon Kirby]

So why should NTC 'give' land to a small group for free? Or are you proposing to pay NTC rent?

There's nothing unusual in a Community Asset Transfer. NTC didn't buy my Wash Common site on the open market, it was created in the 1858 enclosure of Wash Common and given to the church commissioners in trust for the labouring poor and thereby found its way into NTC's hands, in trust.

If it costs NTC £100k to provide the allotment service and they could facilitate a better service at zero cost to the tax-payer by transfering sites into the ownership of an allotment society then that makes excellent sense. It happens, it's not unusual.

Asset transfer isn't the only option. Councils can legitimately lease allotment sites to site associations, and they can also install site associations as managers. All of those arrangements are losely called self-management, but the more involvement that NTC retains the higher the cost to the tax-payer and the less incentive to the site associations.

[Simon Kirby]

Couple of points that I'm sure you can clarify Simon. You say..
"The significance of the level of subsidy is that it is unlawful for a council to discriminate in favour of one leisure service over another and councils are required to subsidise all leisure services by the same amount."
Can one really say that an allotment is a leisure service in the same way that a playing field or park is. An allotment is for the benefit of one person on a private basis whereas the other two are for public/communal use.

Sorry, I didn't read the question carefully enough. No, you're right, an allotment isn't comparable to a playing field or park for the reason you give. However, I compared the cost of the allotment service with the cost of the council's "recreation grounds" head which is principally the provision of football facilities for hire, and that is directly comparable. Parks and open-spaces which are free-of-charge at the point of use and for public and communal use are accounted for under different heads and have their own significant running costs. I might also have compared allotments to bowls because to my knowledge the £700 rent the bowls club pays has never been increased, but the running costs of the bowls service aren't accounted for separately and are wrapped up in the Viccy Park costs so no comparison is possible.