Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Allotments on the One Show
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 11:38 AM
I mentioned the other day about the plans of Greenwich Council to increase their allotment rents by 200%, and they were featured http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00z5f54/The_One_Show_02_03_2011/ - item starts 1 minute 45 seconds in.
Tenants there are facing a 200% rent increase - that would increase the cost of a standard plot from £67 to £200. Greenwich allotmenteers are fighting the increase on the basis of http://bucksburnallotments.co.uk/Documents/Harwood%20v%20Reigate%20and%20Banstead%20Council.pdf which requires councils to apply the same subsidy to allotments as it does to its other leisure services. There are a number of councils who are looking at similar price hikes, not least Newbury Town Council who have already proposed that a standard plot should cost £250, and similar legal challenges seem likely.
The significant difference between Greenwich and Newbury is that Greenwich is actively encouraging its sites to self-manage to avoid the increase:
QUOTE ("Greenwich allotmenteer")
The Council is very keen on the idea of sites moving to self-managed status. Self-managed sites would be able to set their own rents and manage their own maintenance
Newbury Town Council admit that their administration of their service costs the tax-payer around £80 per plot, and this compares rather poorly with commercial administration at around £8 per plot, and self-managed administration at around £2 per plot. I understand that an allotments management company has already made a formal approach to the Town Council to take on the management of the Council's six sites which would save the tax payer at least £40k by the Council's reckoning, and more likely twice that, with no increase in rent for the allotmenteers. It will be very interesting to see how the Town Council respond.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 11:47 AM
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8804070.Step_towards_self_management_for_allotment_holders/.
QUOTE ("Councillor Brian Coleman @ Cabinet Member for Environment")
To be honest, plot holders can run their own allotments a lot better than the council ever could.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 12:12 PM
This from the http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmenvtra/560/56011.htm#a28, a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the future of allotments from 1998 - that's under Labour, and before the Big Society brand was invented.
QUOTE
There is little doubt that, when successfully implemented, self-management schemes ensure greater control of a site by allotment holders and tend to work to the benefit of the site. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State expressed support for the practice, noting that "self-management at that very local level is almost always a good idea."[175] We believe that self-management fulfills the twin aims of ensuring greater control of a site by allotment holders and also reducing a local authority's administrative responsibilities. We recommend that all local authorities examine the potential for self-management of their allotment sites
Posted by: panda Mar 3 2011, 12:26 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 3 2011, 11:38 AM) 
I mentioned the other day about the plans of Greenwich Council to increase their allotment rents by 200%, and they were featured http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00z5f54/The_One_Show_02_03_2011/ - item starts 1 minute 45 seconds in.
Tenants there are facing a 200% rent increase - that would increase the cost of a standard plot from £67 to £200. Greenwich allotmenteers are fighting the increase on the basis of http://bucksburnallotments.co.uk/Documents/Harwood%20v%20Reigate%20and%20Banstead%20Council.pdf which requires councils to apply the same subsidy to allotments as it does to its other leisure services. There are a number of councils who are looking at similar price hikes, not least Newbury Town Council who have already proposed that a standard plot should cost £250, and similar legal challenges seem likely.
The significant difference between Greenwich and Newbury is that Greenwich is actively encouraging its sites to self-manage to avoid the increase:
Newbury Town Council admit that their administration of their service costs the tax-payer around £80 per plot, and this compares rather poorly with commercial administration at around £8 per plot, and self-managed administration at around £2 per plot. I understand that an allotments management company has already made a formal approach to the Town Council to take on the management of the Council's six sites which would save the tax payer at least £40k by the Council's reckoning, and more likely twice that, with no increase in rent for the allotmenteers. It will be very interesting to see how the Town Council respond.
Tenants there are facing a 200% rent increase - that would increase the cost of a standard plot from £67 to £200. Greenwich allotmenteers are fighting the increase on the basis of http://bucksburnallotments.co.uk/Documents/Harwood%20v%20Reigate%20and%20Banstead%20Council.pdf which requires councils to apply the same subsidy to allotments as it does to its other leisure services. There are a number of councils who are looking at similar price hikes, not least Newbury Town Council who have already proposed that a standard plot should cost £250, and similar legal challenges seem likely.
The significant difference between Greenwich and Newbury is that Greenwich is actively encouraging its sites to self-manage to avoid the increase:
Newbury Town Council admit that their administration of their service costs the tax-payer around £80 per plot, and this compares rather poorly with commercial administration at around £8 per plot, and self-managed administration at around £2 per plot. I understand that an allotments management company has already made a formal approach to the Town Council to take on the management of the Council's six sites which would save the tax payer at least £40k by the Council's reckoning, and more likely twice that, with no increase in rent for the allotmenteers. It will be very interesting to see how the Town Council respond.
I thought there was a 0 increase for allotment tenents
Posted by: panda Mar 3 2011, 12:46 PM
zero %...zero%...not £250. Twisting the facts again are we Simon
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2011, 12:58 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 3 2011, 12:46 PM)
zero %...zero%...not £250. Twisting the facts again are we Simon
Simon said the council have a proposal to take rents to £250.00. He didn't say the rent will be £250.00 next year. I suggest you are the one twisting things.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 3 2011, 01:20 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2011, 12:58 PM)
Simon said the council have a proposal to take rents to £250.00. he didn't say the rent will be £250.00 next year. I suggest you are the one twisting things.
I wouldn't call it a proposal, more wishful thinking.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2011, 01:34 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 3 2011, 01:20 PM)
I wouldn't call it a proposal, more wishful thinking.
Either way, it wasn't as panda stated, or tried to 'smear'.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 01:44 PM
Last year Cllr Johnson proposed a rate of £25 per pole. As the scale of the Council's inefficiency comes under ever closer scrutiny with the deepening of the public spending crisis it's reasonable to suppose it will be proposed again.
QUOTE ("Policy and Resources @ 11 January 2010")
To consider the following proposals for 2010/11:
...
Allotment Charges - Currently, the cost of providing allotments is subsidised by all Newbury Council taxpayers at about 75%. It therefore seems logical and fairer for the cost of providing the service (which is enjoyed by a relatively small number of Newbury residents) to be weighted towards the direct users of the service. It is felt that this can best be achieved by introducing a two-tier charging system from the 1st April 2010 which will, over time, address the issue of reducing the subsidy. The new charges are proposed to be: for existing tenants an increase from £4.71 per pole to £5.00 per pole per annum, and for new tenants £25 per pole per annum.
...
Allotment Charges - Currently, the cost of providing allotments is subsidised by all Newbury Council taxpayers at about 75%. It therefore seems logical and fairer for the cost of providing the service (which is enjoyed by a relatively small number of Newbury residents) to be weighted towards the direct users of the service. It is felt that this can best be achieved by introducing a two-tier charging system from the 1st April 2010 which will, over time, address the issue of reducing the subsidy. The new charges are proposed to be: for existing tenants an increase from £4.71 per pole to £5.00 per pole per annum, and for new tenants £25 per pole per annum.
And the subsidy was actually 80%; £12k revenue, £64k turnover, that's £21.5 maintenance, £42.5 administration.
It's a funny old thing, but by the time of the http://www.newbury.gov.uk/minutes10/minutescs100524.pdf Cllr Johnson appeared to have forgotten about the proposal to set a rent to cover the administrative costs.
QUOTE ("West Mills Tenants Meeting")
[an allotmenteer asked] Does the Council plan to increase charges over the next few years to the point where all administrative costs are recovered from plot-holders?
Chairpersons Response: “There have been no discussions to date regarding full recovery of admin costs through future rent increases.
Chairpersons Response: “There have been no discussions to date regarding full recovery of admin costs through future rent increases.
Odd that, no?
Posted by: panda Mar 3 2011, 02:09 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2011, 12:58 PM)
Simon said the council have a proposal to take rents to £250.00. He didn't say the rent will be £250.00 next year. I suggest you are the one twisting things.
As you say, Simon said the council have a proposal to take the rents to £250. Now he is saying that the proposal was last year. So what happened to that proposal???. Are we talking about currant events or something that happened a year ago?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 03:58 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 3 2011, 02:09 PM)
As you say, Simon said the council have a proposal to take the rents to £250. Now he is saying that the proposal was last year. So what happened to that proposal???. Are we talking about currant events or something that happened a year ago?
Read what I said http://www.giantpanda.org.au/index.php/giant-pandas.html.
QUOTE
There are a number of councils who are looking at similar price hikes, not least Newbury Town Council who have already proposed that a standard plot should cost £250, and similar legal challenges seem likely.
It has been proposed in Newbury, it's happening elsewhere, ergo: It's likely to happen in Newbury.
There was a zero percentage increase in allotment rents this year because the tenancy agreement obliges the Council to give 13 months notice of a rent increase, a consequence of Trading Standards' enforcement of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and the Council were not able to serve notice of an increase by February 1 2010 as required by the tenancy agreement. There will be no increase next year either because the Council didn't give notice last month - how could they, it would expose the lie that the 47% increase was enforceable. The earliest the Council can impose an increase is March 2013, for which they need to serve notice by 1 February 2012.
Of course, it's entirely possible that Newbury Town Council will try and evict anyone who asserts their contractural and consumer rights, but it can't be done - rights are rights, though sometimes you have to stand up for them.
Posted by: panda Mar 3 2011, 04:37 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 3 2011, 03:58 PM)
Read what I said http://www.giantpanda.org.au/index.php/giant-pandas.html.
It has been proposed in Newbury, it's happening elsewhere, ergo: It's likely to happen in Newbury.
There was a zero percentage increase in allotment rents this year because the tenancy agreement obliges the Council to give 13 months notice of a rent increase, a consequence of Trading Standards' enforcement of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and the Council were not able to serve notice of an increase by February 1 2010 as required by the tenancy agreement. There will be no increase next year either because the Council didn't give notice last month - how could they, it would expose the lie that the 47% increase was enforceable. The earliest the Council can impose an increase is March 2013, for which they need to serve notice by 1 February 2012.
Of course, it's entirely possible that Newbury Town Council will try and evict anyone who asserts their contractural and consumer rights, but it can't be done - rights are rights, though sometimes you have to stand up for them.
It has been proposed in Newbury, it's happening elsewhere, ergo: It's likely to happen in Newbury.
There was a zero percentage increase in allotment rents this year because the tenancy agreement obliges the Council to give 13 months notice of a rent increase, a consequence of Trading Standards' enforcement of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and the Council were not able to serve notice of an increase by February 1 2010 as required by the tenancy agreement. There will be no increase next year either because the Council didn't give notice last month - how could they, it would expose the lie that the 47% increase was enforceable. The earliest the Council can impose an increase is March 2013, for which they need to serve notice by 1 February 2012.
Of course, it's entirely possible that Newbury Town Council will try and evict anyone who asserts their contractural and consumer rights, but it can't be done - rights are rights, though sometimes you have to stand up for them.
Like i said ,that was a proposal a year ago, did it happen, NO as it been proposed since, NO. As for your interpretation of the allotment rules, well thats it they are YOUR interpretation of the rules.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 04:59 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 3 2011, 04:37 PM)
Like i said ,that was a proposal a year ago, did it happen, NO as it been proposed since, NO. As for your interpretation of the allotment rules, well thats it they are YOUR interpretation of the rules.
Read what I said. If you're having a bit of trouble try this.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 3 2011, 05:13 PM
Simon, I think you have an admirer......
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 05:20 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Mar 3 2011, 05:13 PM)
Simon, I think you have an admirer......
It's the time of year, stalkers everywhere. Just heap on the manure.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 3 2011, 05:25 PM
Maybe you should plant bamboo?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2011, 05:51 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 3 2011, 04:59 PM)
Read what I said. If you're having a bit of trouble try this.
I don't think panda is interested in what you write; panda just wants to d@mn you.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 3 2011, 05:54 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2011, 05:51 PM)
I don't think panda is interested in what you write; panda just wants to d@mn you.
Can't agree. It is clearly love.
Posted by: panda Mar 3 2011, 06:03 PM
The truth is that Simon will not answer the question. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PROPOSAL. Did the council aggree to it. was it a year ago. Has it been mentioned this year. Come on kirby, why dont you answer, or can you only look at panda books.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 3 2011, 06:09 PM
You just want his attention.....
Are you a wallflower?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2011, 06:30 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 3 2011, 06:03 PM)
The truth is that Simon will not answer the question. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PROPOSAL. Did the council aggree to it. was it a year ago. Has it been mentioned this year. Come on kirby, why dont you answer, or can you only look at panda books.
Nothing has happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future, and that is the point he is making.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 3 2011, 06:37 PM
I think SK is trying to allude that a £250pa rent is more than just wishful thinking from NTC.
too much belief in Bertrand Russell - What is new in our time is the increased power of the authorities to enforce their prejudices.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2011, 07:03 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 3 2011, 06:37 PM)
I think SK is trying to allude that a £250pa rent is more than just wishful thinking from NTC.
too much belief in Bertrand Russell - What is new in our time is the increased power of the authorities to enforce their prejudices.
too much belief in Bertrand Russell - What is new in our time is the increased power of the authorities to enforce their prejudices.
That is right.
too much belief in Vegetius - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 3 2011, 07:05 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2011, 07:03 PM)
That is right.
too much belief in Vegetius - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
too much belief in Vegetius - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
The only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2011, 07:09 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 3 2011, 07:05 PM)
The only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation.
In this case that would require mediation, but it seems however, if SK is to be believed, the Council are refusing to enter into discussion.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 3 2011, 07:17 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2011, 07:09 PM)
In this case that would require mediation, but it seems however, if SK is to be believed, the Council are refusing to enter into discussion.
The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction
Could there be a Bertrand Russell quote for every occasion?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2011, 07:26 PM
Yes: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 07:38 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 3 2011, 06:37 PM)
I think SK is trying to allude that a £250pa rent is more than just wishful thinking from NTC.
I'm being quite direct about it. NTC have already proposed £250 for a full plot, so it's more than an outside possibility in the near future because there's now a precedent from several councils to charge more or less the full cost of the service, and for local government to subsidise allotments while day-centres close is grotesque.
The only think that makes £250 unlikely in Newbury is that the Town Council don't want to push their allotmenteers too far and risk an organised challenge for self-management, because there's a precedent for that too now.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2011, 07:09 PM)
In this case that would require mediation, but it seems however, if SK is to be believed, the Council are refusing to enter into discussion.
For the record I would still very much like to resolve the present situation, and if anyone with standing can bring the Town Council to the table then they would have my thanks.
Posted by: panda Mar 3 2011, 07:48 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 3 2011, 07:38 PM)
I'm being quite direct about it. NTC have already proposed £250 for a full plot, so it's more than an outside possibility in the near future because there's now a precedent from several councils to charge more or less the full cost of the service, and for local government to subsidise allotments while day-centres close is grotesque.
The only think that makes £250 unlikely in Newbury is that the Town Council don't want to push their allotmenteers too far and risk an organised challenge for self-management, because there's a precedent for that too now.
The only think that makes £250 unlikely in Newbury is that the Town Council don't want to push their allotmenteers too far and risk an organised challenge for self-management, because there's a precedent for that too now.
So you can see into the future now. Your quite sad really. I new you couldn't resist talking about allotments again and again and again
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2011, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 3 2011, 07:48 PM)
So you can see into the future now. Your quite sad really. I new you couldn't resist talking about allotments again and again and again
What do you expect with a thread of called Allotments on the One Show? You must be a Newbury councillor.
Would you start a thread about something interesting?
Posted by: user23 Mar 3 2011, 08:37 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 3 2011, 07:48 PM)
So you can see into the future now. Your quite sad really. I new you couldn't resist talking about allotments again and again and again
It's all he can talk about.Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 3 2011, 08:44 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 3 2011, 08:37 PM)
It's all he can talk about.
erm, I think Simon has also been talking about some sort of Hydro-Power project on this forum.
if you are going to slate someone,at least do a little research!!
Posted by: panda Mar 3 2011, 08:52 PM
QUOTE (the bloke on the street @ Mar 3 2011, 08:44 PM)
erm, I think Simon has also been talking about some sort of Hydro-Power project on this forum.
if you are going to slate someone,at least do a little research!!
if you are going to slate someone,at least do a little research!!
Did anyone go to that hydro-power meeting from this forum
Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 3 2011, 08:55 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 3 2011, 08:52 PM)
Did anyone go to that hydro-power meeting from this forum
erm, please read the forum for yourself!
the answer to that question is on there
Posted by: user23 Mar 3 2011, 08:57 PM
QUOTE (the bloke on the street @ Mar 3 2011, 08:44 PM)
erm, I think Simon has also been talking about some sort of Hydro-Power project on this forum.
if you are going to slate someone,at least do a little research!!
He probably thinks it will provide power to nearby allotments.if you are going to slate someone,at least do a little research!!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2011, 09:00 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 3 2011, 07:48 PM)
So you can see into the future now. Your quite sad really. I new you couldn't resist talking about allotments again and again and again
Panda, seriously now: This is a discussion forum - you clearly have a problem with what I post here about allotments but you're not saying what it is, and it could genuinely be constructive if you did. If you don't feel able to post openly then you're welcome to PM me.
If you're a council officer then I am genuinely sorry that your council has made it necessary to have the self-management debate in public like this - really, it's not how I'd have chosen to discuss it and I can understand how what I say will be upsetting - really, I'm sorry about that.
If you're an allotmenteer then you'll be aware that I started an allotment society to represent the allotmenteers' interests and create a democratic forum, and you may also know some of the interests who made it their business to undermine that. What do you want from this?
If you're a councillor, then why not work with me.
Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 3 2011, 09:51 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 3 2011, 08:57 PM)
He probably thinks it will provide power to nearby allotments.
now look who is getting allotments into every post!! LOL
Posted by: panda Mar 4 2011, 11:49 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 3 2011, 09:00 PM)
Panda, seriously now: This is a discussion forum - you clearly have a problem with what I post here about allotments but you're not saying what it is, and it could genuinely be constructive if you did. If you don't feel able to post openly then you're welcome to PM me.
If you're a council officer then I am genuinely sorry that your council has made it necessary to have the self-management debate in public like this - really, it's not how I'd have chosen to discuss it and I can understand how what I say will be upsetting - really, I'm sorry about that.
If you're an allotmenteer then you'll be aware that I started an allotment society to represent the allotmenteers' interests and create a democratic forum, and you may also know some of the interests who made it their business to undermine that. What do you want from this?
If you're a councillor, then why not work with me.
If you're a council officer then I am genuinely sorry that your council has made it necessary to have the self-management debate in public like this - really, it's not how I'd have chosen to discuss it and I can understand how what I say will be upsetting - really, I'm sorry about that.
If you're an allotmenteer then you'll be aware that I started an allotment society to represent the allotmenteers' interests and create a democratic forum, and you may also know some of the interests who made it their business to undermine that. What do you want from this?
If you're a councillor, then why not work with me.
The problem i have is that you tell only half the story, tell only half the facts and are misleading people on here. You tell people only what YOU want them them to hear.
Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 4 2011, 12:04 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 4 2011, 11:49 AM)
The problem i have is that you tell only half the story, tell only half the facts and are misleading people on here. You tell people only what YOU want them them to hear.
panda, if you have the other side of the story ( as you are alluding) please feel free to add something to this thread, instead of just negative responses about other posters.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 4 2011, 12:43 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 4 2011, 11:49 AM)
The problem i have is that you tell only half the story, tell only half the facts and are misleading people on here. You tell people only what YOU want them them to hear.
If you know 'better', then perhaps now is the opportunity to 'put the record straight'. Otherwise you are no better than what you accuse Simon Kirkby of being.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 4 2011, 07:31 PM
Come on Councillor, let's have your evidence.
Not so easy to control dissent in a public forum is it. You should have stuck to intimidating grieving mothers.
Posted by: Exhausted Mar 4 2011, 07:57 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 4 2011, 07:31 PM)
Come on Councillor, let's have your evidence.
Not so easy to control dissent in a public forum is it. You should have stuck to intimidating grieving mothers.
Not so easy to control dissent in a public forum is it. You should have stuck to intimidating grieving mothers.
I think that you should ignore Panda, as somone has already suggested. I take the view that all he wants is to wind you up and I suspect he is winning. He accuses you of turning everything into a post about allotments when in fact the only subject that he has actually posted on is allotments. Most of his posts are just nonsense so if, as you believe, he is a Town councillor, all I can say is "Lawd help us".
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 4 2011, 08:02 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Mar 4 2011, 07:57 PM)
I think that you should ignore Panda, as somone has already suggested. I take the view that all he wants is to wind you up and I suspect he is winning. He accuses you of turning everything into a post about allotments when in fact the only subject that he has actually posted on is allotments. Most of his posts are just nonsense so if, as you believe, he is a Town councillor, all I can say is "Lawd help us".
Thanks Exhausted, you're right.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 5 2011, 10:10 AM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Mar 4 2011, 07:57 PM)
I think that you should ignore Panda, as somone has already suggested. I take the view that all he wants is to wind you up and I suspect he is winning. He accuses you of turning everything into a post about allotments when in fact the only subject that he has actually posted on is allotments. Most of his posts are just nonsense so if, as you believe, he is a Town councillor, all I can say is "Lawd help us".
Yes Simon Don't Panda to the winding up?
It is so easy to disparage posters but it is very hard to produce factual evidence to prove them completely wrong?
Most of the time it seems you have to have a gut feeling that someone is telling the truth or otherwise and just go with it until such times as facts are substantiated? Only problem is it is very hard to get the substantiated facts especially when it relates to the business of the local authorities. Until such time as we have transparency in the business of the local authorities then every thing they do will have to be questioned in minute detail?
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 5 2011, 10:20 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 5 2011, 10:10 AM)
Yes Simon Don't Panda to the winding up?
It is so easy to disparage posters but it is very hard to produce factual evidence to prove them completely wrong?
Most of the time it seems you have to have a gut feeling that someone is telling the truth or otherwise and just go with it until such times as facts are substantiated? Only problem is it is very hard to get the substantiated facts especially when it relates to the business of the local authorities. Until such time as we have transparency in the business of the local authorities then every thing they do will have to be questioned in minute detail?
It is so easy to disparage posters but it is very hard to produce factual evidence to prove them completely wrong?
Most of the time it seems you have to have a gut feeling that someone is telling the truth or otherwise and just go with it until such times as facts are substantiated? Only problem is it is very hard to get the substantiated facts especially when it relates to the business of the local authorities. Until such time as we have transparency in the business of the local authorities then every thing they do will have to be questioned in minute detail?
Everything? Hope not!
Minute detail? Likewise....
I prefer to look at any political-based statement and se how it pans out with my gut feelings - as you say so correctly - and then the more I find the source was using weasel-words the less faith I have in any future statements.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 5 2011, 10:26 AM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Mar 5 2011, 10:20 AM)
Everything? Hope not!
Minute detail? Likewise....
I prefer to look at any political-based statement and se how it pans out with my gut feelings - as you say so correctly - and then the more I find the source was using weasel-words the less faith I have in any future statements.
Minute detail? Likewise....
I prefer to look at any political-based statement and se how it pans out with my gut feelings - as you say so correctly - and then the more I find the source was using weasel-words the less faith I have in any future statements.
So no faith in any posters then? Until proven otherwise?
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 5 2011, 10:43 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 5 2011, 10:26 AM)
So no faith in any posters then? Until proven otherwise?
Some...
Posted by: panda Mar 5 2011, 06:01 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 4 2011, 07:31 PM)
Come on Councillor, let's have your evidence.
Not so easy to control dissent in a public forum is it. You should have stuck to intimidating grieving mothers.
Not so easy to control dissent in a public forum is it. You should have stuck to intimidating grieving mothers.
In fact I am an allotment tenent, so the sooner you get kicked off your plot the better. Nobody wants to hear your crackpot ideas. Not evan the allotment society in which you were kicked off the committe
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 5 2011, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 5 2011, 06:01 PM)
In fact I am an allotment tenent, so the sooner you get kicked off your plot the better. Nobody wants to hear your crackpot ideas. Not evan the allotment society in which you were kicked off the committe
What crack-pot ideas are they? I'm a council tax payer, and his ideas seem good to me. Especially if they involve reducing our council tax subsidy to your past-time.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 5 2011, 07:21 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 5 2011, 06:01 PM)
In fact I am an allotment tenent, so the sooner you get kicked off your plot the better. Nobody wants to hear your crackpot ideas. Not evan the allotment society in which you were kicked off the committe
You raise a couple of issues.
Firstly I resigned from the committee, it was entirely my decision, and there was not the slightest hint or suggestion from the committee that I should do so. You assertion that I was "kicked off" is malicious and without foundation in fact.
Here is my letter of resignation from 25 March.
QUOTE
Hi All
The Council appear to have backed down on the flag and have told me that there is no threat of eviction, so that's good. Marion was kind enough to write a note of support saying how my flag was unique and that no one had a problem with it, and I'm sure that made it much easier for the council to do the right thing, so thanks Marion.
However, I'm resigning from the Committee. While I'm involved we hold each other back. I hope you understand. If you're interested in fighting the rent increase let me know, because I haven't given up on that.
Let me know if someone wants to take over the administration of the web site or I'll suspend it if you'd prefer.
Cheers, Simon
The Council appear to have backed down on the flag and have told me that there is no threat of eviction, so that's good. Marion was kind enough to write a note of support saying how my flag was unique and that no one had a problem with it, and I'm sure that made it much easier for the council to do the right thing, so thanks Marion.
However, I'm resigning from the Committee. While I'm involved we hold each other back. I hope you understand. If you're interested in fighting the rent increase let me know, because I haven't given up on that.
Let me know if someone wants to take over the administration of the web site or I'll suspend it if you'd prefer.
Cheers, Simon
Secondly, would you like to discuss which of my ideas you believe to be crackpot, and why? It's your chance to put the other side of the story, so fill your boots.
Lastly, why would you ever be glad for a fellow allotmenteer to be kicked off their plot? If you know me then you'll know how important my allotment is to me. Why would you want me to be evicted? What have I done to hurt you? Tell me this isn't all about locking the site gate?
Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 5 2011, 08:30 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 5 2011, 06:01 PM)
In fact I am an allotment tenent, so the sooner you get kicked off your plot the better. Nobody wants to hear your crackpot ideas. Not evan the allotment society in which you were kicked off the committe
why would an allotment tenant want another kicked off?
with posts like that, it's no wonder your species seldom mates.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 5 2011, 08:31 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 5 2011, 07:21 PM)
You raise a couple of issues.
Firstly I resigned from the committee, it was entirely my decision, and there was not the slightest hint or suggestion from the committee that I should do so. You assertion that I was "kicked off" is malicious and without foundation in fact.
Here is my letter of resignation from 25 March.
Secondly, would you like to discuss which of my ideas you believe to be crackpot, and why? It's your chance to put the other side of the story, so fill your boots.
Lastly, why would you ever be glad for a fellow allotmenteer to be kicked off their plot? If you know me then you'll know how important my allotment is to me. Why would you want me to be evicted? What have I done to hurt you? Tell me this isn't all about locking the site gate?
Firstly I resigned from the committee, it was entirely my decision, and there was not the slightest hint or suggestion from the committee that I should do so. You assertion that I was "kicked off" is malicious and without foundation in fact.
Here is my letter of resignation from 25 March.
Secondly, would you like to discuss which of my ideas you believe to be crackpot, and why? It's your chance to put the other side of the story, so fill your boots.
Lastly, why would you ever be glad for a fellow allotmenteer to be kicked off their plot? If you know me then you'll know how important my allotment is to me. Why would you want me to be evicted? What have I done to hurt you? Tell me this isn't all about locking the site gate?
As a taxpayer who knows there has to be cuts I await Panda's revelations on Simon's crackpot ideas. Instead of cutting essential services to the vulnerable, I would rather cut services to someone,s hobby,if the handing over of running the allotments to a society would save a lot of taxpayers money and see the services improve then I fail to see what is so wrong with Simon's proposals? Any way looking forward to an established allotmenteers arguments why this is wrong? So over to you Panda!
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 5 2011, 09:31 PM
I suggest that panda is a liar. A liar who wants to smear Simon Kirkby.
Posted by: Bofem Mar 6 2011, 08:29 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 5 2011, 09:31 PM)
I suggest that panda is a liar. A liar who wants to smear Simon Kirkby.
Liar or not, certainly a nasty piece of work.
I suggest a courgette where the sun don't shine
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 6 2011, 01:44 PM
QUOTE (Bofem @ Mar 6 2011, 08:29 AM)
Liar or not, certainly a nasty piece of work.
I suggest a courgette where the sun don't shine
I suggest a courgette where the sun don't shine
Shush! Be quiet! I am waiting for the revelations of Simon's crackpot ideas from Panda?
Panda where for art thou Panda?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2011, 07:43 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 6 2011, 01:44 PM)
I am waiting for the revelations of Simon's crackpot ideas
In my defence I would like to make it clear that I grow neither crack nor pot on my allotment. Well, maybe a little weed, but that's it.
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 06:38 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 6 2011, 07:43 PM)
In my defence I would like to make it clear that I grow neither crack nor pot on my allotment. Well, maybe a little weed, but that's it.
Yes you have a nice plot. Do you use horse manure or is it bullsh*t you use all the time.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 7 2011, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 06:38 PM)
Yes you have a nice plot. Do you use horse manure or is it bullsh*t you use all the time.
Is this part of the revelations you were going to reveal to us to prove Simon had crackpot ideas?
Come on Panda you have committed yourself now; either put up or shut up?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 07:00 PM
I don't like to do it, but I have reported this 'panda' person to the mods. Hopefully they will rid us of him.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2011, 07:13 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 7 2011, 07:00 PM)
I don't like to do it, but I have reported this 'panda' person to the mods. Hopefully they will rid us of him.
Him?
I still think Panda is on the pull but Simon will not react. Unrequited love lasts for ever
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Mar 7 2011, 07:13 PM)
Him?
I still think Panda is on the pull but Simon will not react. Unrequited love lasts for ever
I still think Panda is on the pull but Simon will not react. Unrequited love lasts for ever
The language of panda doesn't seem feminine to me.
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 07:51 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 7 2011, 07:37 PM)
The language of panda doesn't seem feminine to me.
I think you should look at the things that were said on bbwsouth's post. Not very nice and you are going to report me??
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 7 2011, 08:02 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 07:51 PM)
I think you should look at the things that were said on bbwsouth's post. Not very nice and you are going to report me??
Revelations Panda? I thought you were going to explain Simon's crackpot ideas? Where are they?
Always nice to hear both sides of an debate? Or do you have nothing to reveal?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 08:41 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 07:51 PM)
I think you should look at the things that were said on bbwsouth's post. Not very nice and you are going to report me??
I have reported you, but you needn't worry, the admin on this site are very lenient. How about posting something worthwhile, rather than simply Simon Kirkby is a git?
Posted by: Biker1 Mar 7 2011, 09:01 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 7 2011, 09:41 PM)
I have reported you, but you needn't worry, the admin on this site are very lenient. How about posting something worthwhile, rather than simply Simon Kirkby is a git?
Why does everybody keep "panda-ing" (get it?
) to this person?Every reply plays into their hands.
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 09:09 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 07:51 PM)
I think you should look at the things that were said on bbwsouth's post. Not very nice and you are going to report me??
Like I said, the comments that were put on bbwsouth's post were not very nice from any of you. But you seem to sweep that under the carpet.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 09:11 PM
I'd rather panda post something that supports their vitriol.
Posted by: Biker1 Mar 7 2011, 09:16 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 7 2011, 10:11 PM)
I'd rather panda post something that supports their vitriol.
Fair enough, but until they do.................................................
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 09:20 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 7 2011, 09:11 PM)
I'd rather panda post something that supports their vitriol.
Maybe you should apologize to bbsouth for being rude.
Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 7 2011, 09:52 PM
please folk, don't enter into a battle of wits with panda
it's not fair to do battle with an un-armed opponent
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 09:59 PM
QUOTE (the bloke on the street @ Mar 7 2011, 09:52 PM)
please folk, don't enter into a battle of wits with panda
it's not fair to do battle with an un-armed opponent
it's not fair to do battle with an un-armed opponent
yeah lets just chat amungst ourselves so noone can critisize us
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 10:00 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 09:20 PM)
Maybe you should apologize to bbsouth for being rude.
Maybe, but until then, how about substantiating your vulgar attack on Simon Kirkby. I presume a lack of detail is because you have nothing on him.
Meanwhile; show me where I was rude to bbwsouth?
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 10:09 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 7 2011, 10:00 PM)
Maybe, but until then, how about substantiating your vulgar attack on Simon Kirkby. I presume a lick of detail is because you have nothing on him.
Meanwhile; show me where I was rude to bbwsouth?
Meanwhile; show me where I was rude to bbwsouth?
There were a few of you with unkind remarks
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 10:14 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 10:09 PM)
There were a few of you with unkind remarks
You said I was rude and should apologise to bbwsouth. Please show me?
Below are all my posts on her(?) thread: http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1204&hl=
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 12:45 PM)
Is size 16 over-weight?
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 01:08 PM)
Smokers might be a burden on the NHS, but they pay far more tax than they receive in care. Overweight is more complex than simply being gutty. It is the people that can control their weight that are abnormal. We are programmed to seek food, unfortunately modern living standards conspire against natures will. Meanwhile; even 'overweight' people need clothes to dress too, even if they are on a diet.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 03:27 PM)
The student was promoting a service that was possibly illegal.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 05:14 PM)
No.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 05:15 PM)
I didn't say it was.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 05:19 PM)
It's called being a human being, but beyond that, there are conditions like hypothyroidism, HRT, polycystic ovary syndrome , genetics, etc.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 05:22 PM)
...which gives you the moral right to insult people?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 10:14 PM
...and more:
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 05:29 PM)
No one said anything about smoking until you had already had been rude, and as it happens, smokers do stink. I rarely meet anyone with genuine BO. And one I did recently, was 'skinny'. I stopped smoking because it is expensive , stupid and smells. Not to mention dangerous. I can live without ever smoking a cigarette.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 05:45 PM)
Smokers cost NHS ~£3b; smokers pay ~£9b. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm I don't smoke, but I do walk on the cracks of the pavement.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 4 2011, 10:41 PM)
Unless it is of something that is 'copyrighted'!
Posted by: user23 Mar 7 2011, 10:22 PM
QUOTE (the bloke on the street @ Mar 7 2011, 09:52 PM)
please folk, don't enter into a battle of wits with panda
it's not fair to do battle with an un-armed opponent
That's a bit rude.it's not fair to do battle with an un-armed opponent
Just out of interest, which street in West Berkshire are you a bloke on?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 10:33 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 09:09 PM)
Like I said, the comments that were put on bbwsouth's post were not very nice from any of you. But you seem to sweep that under the carpet.
While some were rude, they at least do post something occasionally. Up to now, I don't think you have posted anything but anti-Simon Kirby rhetoric. Put some meat the bone!
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 10:42 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 7 2011, 10:33 PM)
While some were rude, they at least do post something occasionally. Up to now, I don't think you have posted anything but anti-Simon Kirby rhetoric. Put some meat the bone!
he knows why, thats all that matters
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 7 2011, 10:54 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 10:42 PM)
he knows why, thats all that matters
But truely, I have no idea what your issue is. I invite you to put your side of the story.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2011, 11:07 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 7 2011, 10:54 PM)
But truely, I have no idea what your issue is. I invite you to put your side of the story.
Offer to meet on Coombe Hill at midnight and Panda will be there!!
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 11:13 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Mar 7 2011, 11:07 PM)
Offer to meet on Coombe Hill at midnight and Panda will be there!!
I think you have a bit of a fantasy there, maybe you should see someone about it
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2011, 11:18 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 11:13 PM)
I think you have a bit of a fantasy there, maybe you should see someone about it
Well, it makes more sense than your prattle.
If you have something to say, say it.
Posted by: panda Mar 7 2011, 11:19 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Mar 7 2011, 11:18 PM)
Well, it makes more sense than your prattle.
If you have something to say, say it.
If you have something to say, say it.
oooh hit a nerve have i
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2011, 11:24 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 11:19 PM)
oooh hit a nerve have i
Not at all. Just an observation and an invitation.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2011, 11:54 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 7 2011, 10:42 PM)
he knows why, thats all that matters
The fact you haven't offered one bit of useful information only further enhances Simon Kirkby's position in my view. Simon is prepared to to put his neck on the block, yet you run away. You have had plenty of opportunity to state your case, but nothing. Nada. I can only presume you are bluffing.
It is a small town and taking into account what you have posted - should it be discovered you are something to do with one of the councils (through work, a relative, or other), it would really put you and them in an embarrassing position.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 8 2011, 10:48 AM
Why is it that if someone takes a view contrary to bashing the local Councils it is quickly assumed that that person must work for the council?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 8 2011, 12:21 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 8 2011, 10:48 AM)
Why is it that if someone takes a view contrary to bashing the local Councils it is quickly assumed that that person must work for the council?
It hasn't been 'quickly' assumed. One gets a hunch after a while.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 8 2011, 12:30 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 8 2011, 12:21 PM)
It hasn't been 'quickly' assumed. One gets a hunch after a while.
I'll be down as the local mullah soon.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 8 2011, 12:40 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 8 2011, 12:21 PM)
One gets a hunch after a while.
You need posture lessons.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 8 2011, 12:45 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 8 2011, 12:30 PM)
I'll be down as the local mullah soon.
Some people are too easy, eh?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 8 2011, 12:49 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 8 2011, 10:48 AM)
Why is it that if someone takes a view contrary to bashing the local Councils it is quickly assumed that that person must work for the council?
The frustrating thing is that panda hasn't expressed a view, contrary or otherwise. It's very difficult to understand their grievance if they won't say what it is. This is a public forum and I would positively welcome panda's contribution because I think it would be genuinely helpful.
As for panda's identity you don't need to know much about Wash Common and allotment politics to work that out.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 04:45 PM
As with peoples postings. It's pretty easy to work out ertain things when listening to people talk and viewing postings made on other sites etc. Do you reckon people would still post here if they had to reveal their identities?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 04:48 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 9 2011, 04:45 PM)
As with peoples postings. It's pretty easy to work out ertain things when listening to people talk and viewing postings made on other sites etc. Do you reckon people would still post here if they had to reveal their identities?
Yes.
Posted by: blackdog Mar 9 2011, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 9 2011, 04:45 PM)
As with peoples postings. It's pretty easy to work out ertain things when listening to people talk and viewing postings made on other sites etc. Do you reckon people would still post here if they had to reveal their identities?
Many would, some wouldn't.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 9 2011, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 8 2011, 10:48 AM)
Why is it that if someone takes a view contrary to bashing the local Councils it is quickly assumed that that person must work for the council?
One supposes the lack of reasoned argument and common sense gives us a very good clue?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 06:55 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 9 2011, 06:45 PM)
One supposes the lack of reasoned argument and common sense gives us a very good clue?
But, applying that logic would mean you work for the council...
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 9 2011, 07:18 PM
I couldn't be done Richard. Even if users were obliged to register with a validated real name, if someone didn't want to have their subversive posts attributed to them they'd just groom a feeb to register for them and then post with their identity - I believe it was for jiggery-pokery of a similar kind that Cllr Ian Grose as Leader of the Town Council threatened to report a fellow councillor to the Standards Board a couple of years ago - it was all very ugly for a while, and ever since the two parties have not said boo to each other.
I think it should be down to the individual whether they want to post anonymously, but don't expect the forum to say nothing if their potential identity is at issue.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 9 2011, 07:23 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 9 2011, 06:55 PM)
But, applying that logic would mean you work for the council...
Nah! I can prove I don't? No full lobotomy scar?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 12:29 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 9 2011, 07:23 PM)
Nah! I can prove I don't? No full lobotomy scar?
Maybe under the mullet?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 12:32 AM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 10 2011, 12:11 AM)
ok he is allways talking about self managment but on our allotment I dont know anyone who is in favour of it. He talks about when he set up the allotment society. The tenents that didn't want to join were cast aside and the ones that joined were dictated to because he was chairman. He wanted to build a society shed, only so he could put it in a competition. He keeps saying that he could save £100.000, this started off as £40.000 at one stage. This is all my opinion and i may be wrong but things just dont add up. In my opinion he just wants power over the allotments. Now I am going to bed. Maybe chat tommorrow.
OK, thank you panda, but while this is far from an full explanation for what you said, it is a start! Why could you not post this earlier?
As a sign of good faith, I will retract my statement about you calling Simon Kirkby a liar and apologise for any distress this might have caused.
So according to you...
- You don't know anyone who is in favour of it.
- The tenants that didn't want to join were cast aside and the ones that joined were dictated to because he was chairman.
- He wanted to build a society shed, only so he could put it in a competition.
- He keeps saying that he could save £100.000, but started off as £40.000.
You finish by saying this is just your opinion, and you could be wrong. I can also assume you are an allotment keeper on the same allotment as Simon Kirkby.
I have to say though, if he was after power, why did he step-down, or is this untrue? Was he pushed, or encouraged?
What I would ask you to acknowledge, is that even if allotmenteers were reluctant to self manage, I feel we all as tax payers should insist on a move in that direction, provided the service could be maintained at a reasonable level and it is cheaper on the tax payer.
Posted by: NorahG Mar 10 2011, 08:43 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 12:32 AM)
What I would ask you to acknowledge, is that even if allotmenteers were reluctant to self manage, I feel we all as tax payers should insist on a move in that direction, provided the service could be maintained at a reasonable level and it is cheaper on the tax payer.
Hi all, new here. My friends have an allotment in South London. It's not self-managed btw. I was struck by the comment that taxpayers should insist on a move to self-management. That can't be right. Self-management involves a lot of extra work that maybe people don't want to do. I've been reading about the issues in Newbury. It seems to be a one man campaign who to put it nicely quotes costsavings around like confetti!
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 10 2011, 10:30 AM
QUOTE (NorahG @ Mar 10 2011, 08:43 AM)
Hi all, new here. My friends have an allotment in South London. It's not self-managed btw. I was struck by the comment that taxpayers should insist on a move to self-management. That can't be right. Self-management involves a lot of extra work that maybe people don't want to do. I've been reading about the issues in Newbury. It seems to be a one man campaign who to put it nicely quotes costsavings around like confetti!
I think there is definately a debate to be had around self management. Simon is very passionate about it, the council have said they would consider it if a fully costed plan was presented and there was support for it. I don't see why they can't hold a meeting in the town hall like the one for the hydro project, then all sides can present their arguments. I'd happily organise it if there were enough people willing to attend?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 10:44 AM
As I have said all along - self management is fine, so long as there is support from the allotment holders.....
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 10:52 AM
And I have said all along: allotments should-not be subsidised if we are cannot afford to look after things like old folk and carers first. The council can facilitate the land and mandate that the allotment holders look after it in my view.
The council should most definitely seek to promote self management, not protect their little bit of 'self importance'. Should self management prove to be unworkable then fine, but it should be sought.
Posted by: NorahG Mar 10 2011, 10:55 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 10:30 AM)
I think there is definately a debate to be had around self management. Simon is very passionate about it, the council have said they would consider it if a fully costed plan was presented and there was support for it. I don't see why they can't hold a meeting in the town hall like the one for the hydro project, then all sides can present their arguments. I'd happily organise it if there were enough people willing to attend?
What a good idea! Is there a fully costed plan available to see? It would be good to hear from allotment holders their views wouldn't it.
Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 11:01 AM
QUOTE (NorahG @ Mar 10 2011, 08:43 AM)
Hi all, new here. My friends have an allotment in South London. It's not self-managed btw. I was struck by the comment that taxpayers should insist on a move to self-management. That can't be right. Self-management involves a lot of extra work that maybe people don't want to do. I've been reading about the issues in Newbury. It seems to be a one man campaign who to put it nicely quotes costsavings around like confetti!
Welcome Norah.
I agree that NTC can't force the allotment users to move to self-management, nor can the close the allotments. So they seem to have chosen to increase the rents in order to recoup a larger proportion of the money they spend in managing the allotments. Most Newbury residents would probably approve of this tactic (as they are paying for the subsidy to the allotments). If the majority of allotmenteers prefer to pay the higher rents than take on the management themselves then the rents will rise. In essence NTC are encouraging allotmenteers to self manage by winding up the amount they have to pay for the existing, highly subsidised, management activities.
Simon is pro self-management and anti rent rises. He has found that the manner in which the rents were raised is open to question - not that NTC cannot raise rents, just that they haven't done so according to the letter of the tenancy agreements.
He also believes that the current NTC management is hugely inefficient and costs far too much. Though I am not alone in finding his figures pretty dubious as to the actual cost of the management.
It seems to me that NTC should do something rather than let the current situation run and run - and make their thinking clear on why they are doing it (whatever it is).
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 10 2011, 01:13 PM
QUOTE (NorahG @ Mar 10 2011, 10:55 AM)
What a good idea! Is there a fully costed plan available to see? It would be good to hear from allotment holders their views wouldn't it.
The only way to either put something in action or dismiss it entirely is to explore the options available. Simon, what do you think?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 01:17 PM
You could always apply the old addage 'if it ain't broke'..
If, bar one, the allotment holders are happy to pay more for their plot, thus reducing the local tax payers subsidy - why not just let them do so?
Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 01:20 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 01:17 PM)
You could always apply the old addage 'if it ain't broke'..
If, bar one, the allotment holders are happy to pay more for their plot, thus reducing the local tax payers subsidy - why not just let them do so?
If, bar one, the allotment holders are happy to pay more for their plot, thus reducing the local tax payers subsidy - why not just let them do so?
What if there is an alternative that reduces the subsidy to zero?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 01:23 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Mar 10 2011, 01:20 PM)
What if there is an alternative that reduces the subsidy to zero?
Give it time & the rental will be high enough for this to be the case.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 02:04 PM
We've already had a detailed discussion about the possible savings to be made through self-management, and I have also posted a detailed budget to show how self-management would run the service with no support from the tax-payer. If allotment self-management was anything out of the ordinary then there might be some sense in seeing a detailed business plan to judge the proposal, but as it is allotment self-management happens successfully all over the country. What's needed to take it forward is a few allotmenteers willing to organise themselves into a management company and take on the administration, and if the Town Council were to give the initiative their blessing it's likely enough people would come forward to make a start, but the Town Council are actively suppressing self-management so this is unlikely.
How much exactly is to be saved through self-management is open for discussion, and we have had an honest and open discussion about it here. I have put forward reasoned arguments for the savings to expect from self-management, but there is a legitimate debate about how much of the council's overheads could or should also be saved, and having listed to the arguments, particularly blackdog's argument, I currently feel it's reasonable to expect to save £75k through self-management. That is less than I would like the Council to save because I would expect to see a proportional reining-in of its considerable spending on civic pomp and largesse, but as there is not a direct correlation between these heads and the allotment service I recognise that it is fair not to include them in the possible savings.
If anyone is again interested in the draft self-management budget, here it is:
CODE
tenanted poles 2500 The budget assumes full occupancy which can't be assumed
going forward but if occupancy falls so too will running
costs to some degree so there is no particular concern.
tenanted plots 500 The trend has been to let smaller plots, both to get
people off the waiting list and because allotmenteers
want smaller plots, but as a policy NAMCo want
allotmenteers to have the size of plot they want so it is
likely that the average plot size will increase a little.
This is the number of unique tenants on each site, and as
tenants may have more than one plot the number of plots
is higher than this.
pole rate £2.38 The headline pole rate is lower than in previous years
though the final cost of the plot also includes the
standing charge, and the optional donation.
water rate £1.12 Water is charged separately to help the allotmenteer
better appreciate the cost of supply and to make it
easier to pass the cost on to the users.
standing charge £4.00 A standing charge will be introduced to cover the
per-tenant running costs. Small plots will see a higher
apparent rate, but being small the cost will still be
acceptable, whereas bigger plots will see a lower apparent
rate and so also remain affordable. Tenants with more
than one plot on a given site will only pay one standing
charge.
recommended donation £12.00 We'll get 28% of this back from HMRC too. Tenants with
more than one plot on a given site will only be asked to
make one donation.
revenue
rents £7,950 Plot rent.
water £2,800 Water charge
council grant £10,000 The Council will make a substantial saving through
self-management so we will be asking for an establishing
grant, decreasing by £2k each year, to build the capacity
of the sites to self-manage and to fund a modest capital
programme.
other grants £0 As a matter of policy normal operating costs will be
covered by rental income but that is unlikely to be
enough to fund a substantial capital programme and so
grants will be sought.
donations £4,200 On the basis that 70% of tenants will choose to make the
voluntary donation.
income tax reclaim £1,176 On the basis that 85% of those making the voluntary
donation pay tax at the basic rate and sign the
undertaking so that we can reclaim the tax from HMRC.
VAT reclaim £0 If NAMCo is able to register as a charity then it may be
able to reclaim some VAT, though it's unlikely to make
sense to register for VAT as then NAMCo would need to
charge it on rents.
£26,126
spend
rental £600 Rent for parsons.
water £2,800 For water, that's £1.12 per pole. 2010 water costs were
£2,877, but Southby is responsible for a disproportionate
amount of the cost so there's a strong suspicion that
there is a leak which if fixed could yield a substantial
saving. Solar-pumped wells will be investigated as a
possibility for saving money. Water is a large component
of the bill and it might be necessary to add the water
bill to the rent separately so water costs can be
appreciated more directly by the allotmenteers and so the
cost can more easily be passed on to the users.
water supply £1,500 Maintenance of the water supply, so taps, troughs and
pipes. This work will be contracted out but site
associations will be encouraged to bid for the
responsibility and budget.
gates £1,250 For locks, keys, and maintenance to gates.
hedges, fences, £1,500 For running repairs to fences and hedges, and planned
and ditches maintenance of hedges and ditches. This work will be
contracted out but site associations will be encouraged
to bid for the responsibility and budget.
grass cutting £1,000 To encourage site associations to take responsibility
there will be minimal grass cutting of the common areas
with just five contract cuts in the year. This work will
be contracted out but site associations will be
encouraged to bid for the responsibility and budget.
tree work £500 Contract maintenance of site trees, including bat and
bird surveys. It is unlikely that site associations will
have the competence to undertake this work safely so the
expectation is that this will always be contracted out.
rubbish clearance £540 The no dumping rule will be tightened up to prevent the
accumulation of rubbish that inevitably gets left behind
and consideration will be given to a deposit scheme to
pay for plot clean up. NAMCo do not provide a rubbish
disposal service and tenants will be encouraged to manage
their waste sustainably through composting where
possible, then burning where acceptable, and then
disposal off-site. Site associations will be encouraged
to take responsibility for keeping their sites rubbish
free, but with the best will in the world rubbish does
accumulate and there is provision for each site to have
a skip every two years or so, though an application will
also be made for an Environment Agency licence to burn
appropriate waste.
rodent control £0 Sustainable rodent control is to deny harbourage and
forage which is achieved FoC through good site
maintenance and animal husbandry
other pest control £0 Bee and Wasp nests on plots are the responsibility of
the tenant, and where possible nests on common areas
will cordoned off and left alone
storage container rental £0 In time the site associations will need their own storage
containers and in the interim NAMCo doesn't have any need
of central secure storage as any plant and equipment will
be stored privately.
association support £1,988 Site associations that sign a management agreement will
@ 25% receive a grant of 25% of their site rental income to
pay for insurance, tools, training, administration, and
reserves for capital investment, and in exchange the
site association will manage lettings, inspections,
and first-line customer support. If there isn't a site
association then some of this budget will be used to
provide free plots as an incentive to retain stewards
to do the work, and the rest of the budget will go to
capital reserve.
NSALG affiliation £24 Affiliates NAMCo and its board of trustees to the NSALG.
insurance £400 Public liability, employer's, and personal accident
insurance from Bluefin through the NSALG
administration £1,000 Stamps, stationery, office supplies, phone calls, etc.
Estimate based on £2 per plot recommendation from NSALG.
financial and audit £500 Banking, audit, and financial advice.
legal £250 For legal advice. NSALG will be the first port of call
if Google can't help, but there may be a need for some
specific advice or even a need to take or defend legal
action.
corporate reporting £250 Publishing the annual account and filing returns to
Companies House, CIC regulator, HMRC, Charities
Commission, FSA, etc as appropriate.
consultation £100 Meeting with site associations and stewards. NAMCo
won't do any direct consultation because that's the role
of the site association, and if there isn't a site
association then it's another encouragement for the
allotmenteers to form one.
advertising £159 2% of rental income for advertising and promoting
allotmenteering
corporation tax £0 NAMCo will be structured so as to avoid any liability
for CT, either by registering as an industrial and
provident society or some other arrangement acceptable
to HMRC.
contingency £596 7.5% of rental income for the unforeseen. Anthying left
at the end of the year will be moved into the capital
reserve.
surplus £11,169 All the surplus supports the capital programme.
£26,126
going forward but if occupancy falls so too will running
costs to some degree so there is no particular concern.
tenanted plots 500 The trend has been to let smaller plots, both to get
people off the waiting list and because allotmenteers
want smaller plots, but as a policy NAMCo want
allotmenteers to have the size of plot they want so it is
likely that the average plot size will increase a little.
This is the number of unique tenants on each site, and as
tenants may have more than one plot the number of plots
is higher than this.
pole rate £2.38 The headline pole rate is lower than in previous years
though the final cost of the plot also includes the
standing charge, and the optional donation.
water rate £1.12 Water is charged separately to help the allotmenteer
better appreciate the cost of supply and to make it
easier to pass the cost on to the users.
standing charge £4.00 A standing charge will be introduced to cover the
per-tenant running costs. Small plots will see a higher
apparent rate, but being small the cost will still be
acceptable, whereas bigger plots will see a lower apparent
rate and so also remain affordable. Tenants with more
than one plot on a given site will only pay one standing
charge.
recommended donation £12.00 We'll get 28% of this back from HMRC too. Tenants with
more than one plot on a given site will only be asked to
make one donation.
revenue
rents £7,950 Plot rent.
water £2,800 Water charge
council grant £10,000 The Council will make a substantial saving through
self-management so we will be asking for an establishing
grant, decreasing by £2k each year, to build the capacity
of the sites to self-manage and to fund a modest capital
programme.
other grants £0 As a matter of policy normal operating costs will be
covered by rental income but that is unlikely to be
enough to fund a substantial capital programme and so
grants will be sought.
donations £4,200 On the basis that 70% of tenants will choose to make the
voluntary donation.
income tax reclaim £1,176 On the basis that 85% of those making the voluntary
donation pay tax at the basic rate and sign the
undertaking so that we can reclaim the tax from HMRC.
VAT reclaim £0 If NAMCo is able to register as a charity then it may be
able to reclaim some VAT, though it's unlikely to make
sense to register for VAT as then NAMCo would need to
charge it on rents.
£26,126
spend
rental £600 Rent for parsons.
water £2,800 For water, that's £1.12 per pole. 2010 water costs were
£2,877, but Southby is responsible for a disproportionate
amount of the cost so there's a strong suspicion that
there is a leak which if fixed could yield a substantial
saving. Solar-pumped wells will be investigated as a
possibility for saving money. Water is a large component
of the bill and it might be necessary to add the water
bill to the rent separately so water costs can be
appreciated more directly by the allotmenteers and so the
cost can more easily be passed on to the users.
water supply £1,500 Maintenance of the water supply, so taps, troughs and
pipes. This work will be contracted out but site
associations will be encouraged to bid for the
responsibility and budget.
gates £1,250 For locks, keys, and maintenance to gates.
hedges, fences, £1,500 For running repairs to fences and hedges, and planned
and ditches maintenance of hedges and ditches. This work will be
contracted out but site associations will be encouraged
to bid for the responsibility and budget.
grass cutting £1,000 To encourage site associations to take responsibility
there will be minimal grass cutting of the common areas
with just five contract cuts in the year. This work will
be contracted out but site associations will be
encouraged to bid for the responsibility and budget.
tree work £500 Contract maintenance of site trees, including bat and
bird surveys. It is unlikely that site associations will
have the competence to undertake this work safely so the
expectation is that this will always be contracted out.
rubbish clearance £540 The no dumping rule will be tightened up to prevent the
accumulation of rubbish that inevitably gets left behind
and consideration will be given to a deposit scheme to
pay for plot clean up. NAMCo do not provide a rubbish
disposal service and tenants will be encouraged to manage
their waste sustainably through composting where
possible, then burning where acceptable, and then
disposal off-site. Site associations will be encouraged
to take responsibility for keeping their sites rubbish
free, but with the best will in the world rubbish does
accumulate and there is provision for each site to have
a skip every two years or so, though an application will
also be made for an Environment Agency licence to burn
appropriate waste.
rodent control £0 Sustainable rodent control is to deny harbourage and
forage which is achieved FoC through good site
maintenance and animal husbandry
other pest control £0 Bee and Wasp nests on plots are the responsibility of
the tenant, and where possible nests on common areas
will cordoned off and left alone
storage container rental £0 In time the site associations will need their own storage
containers and in the interim NAMCo doesn't have any need
of central secure storage as any plant and equipment will
be stored privately.
association support £1,988 Site associations that sign a management agreement will
@ 25% receive a grant of 25% of their site rental income to
pay for insurance, tools, training, administration, and
reserves for capital investment, and in exchange the
site association will manage lettings, inspections,
and first-line customer support. If there isn't a site
association then some of this budget will be used to
provide free plots as an incentive to retain stewards
to do the work, and the rest of the budget will go to
capital reserve.
NSALG affiliation £24 Affiliates NAMCo and its board of trustees to the NSALG.
insurance £400 Public liability, employer's, and personal accident
insurance from Bluefin through the NSALG
administration £1,000 Stamps, stationery, office supplies, phone calls, etc.
Estimate based on £2 per plot recommendation from NSALG.
financial and audit £500 Banking, audit, and financial advice.
legal £250 For legal advice. NSALG will be the first port of call
if Google can't help, but there may be a need for some
specific advice or even a need to take or defend legal
action.
corporate reporting £250 Publishing the annual account and filing returns to
Companies House, CIC regulator, HMRC, Charities
Commission, FSA, etc as appropriate.
consultation £100 Meeting with site associations and stewards. NAMCo
won't do any direct consultation because that's the role
of the site association, and if there isn't a site
association then it's another encouragement for the
allotmenteers to form one.
advertising £159 2% of rental income for advertising and promoting
allotmenteering
corporation tax £0 NAMCo will be structured so as to avoid any liability
for CT, either by registering as an industrial and
provident society or some other arrangement acceptable
to HMRC.
contingency £596 7.5% of rental income for the unforeseen. Anthying left
at the end of the year will be moved into the capital
reserve.
surplus £11,169 All the surplus supports the capital programme.
£26,126
And if you're interested in seeing where the Town Council spends our money these are the heads for the declared services, though you should note that administration and town hall are not services in their own right and only support the other services, and civic duties, committee expenditure, young people's counl and grants are hardly services as such either.
CODE
cost revenue turnover running staff overheads
costs
market £17,518 £60,000 £77,518 £59,585 £16,281 £1,652
floral displays £16,006 £2,300 £18,306 £9,770 £7,749 £786
christmas lights £46,000 £6,100 £52,100 £39,450 £11,485 £1,166
cemeteries £86,203 £38,000 £124,203 £30,360 £85,197 £8,647
administration £172,406 £0 £172,406 £76,950 £86,661 £8,795
parks, open spaces, £254,954 £5,511 £260,465 £204,946 £50,404 £5,115
&recreation grounds
allotments £43,228 £17,500 £60,728 £21,680 £35,450 £3,598
town hall £58,981 £45,000 £103,981 £50,975 £48,122 £4,884
civic duties £57,721 £0 £57,721 £16,200 £37,695 £3,826
committee expenditure £9,452 £0 £9,452 £9,250 £183 £19
WBC toilets £20,795 £0 £20,795 £20,525 £245 £25
neighbourhood warden scheme £48,773 £0 £48,773 £48,000 £702 £71
young people's council £5,167 £0 £5,167 £1,000 £3,783 £384
assets, war memorial, £36,296 £0 £36,296 £20,350 £14,477 £1,469
footway lighting, clock house
grants £33,523 £0 £33,523 £34,000 -£433 -£44
total £907,023 £174,411 £1,081,434 £643,041 £398,000 £40,393
costs
market £17,518 £60,000 £77,518 £59,585 £16,281 £1,652
floral displays £16,006 £2,300 £18,306 £9,770 £7,749 £786
christmas lights £46,000 £6,100 £52,100 £39,450 £11,485 £1,166
cemeteries £86,203 £38,000 £124,203 £30,360 £85,197 £8,647
administration £172,406 £0 £172,406 £76,950 £86,661 £8,795
parks, open spaces, £254,954 £5,511 £260,465 £204,946 £50,404 £5,115
&recreation grounds
allotments £43,228 £17,500 £60,728 £21,680 £35,450 £3,598
town hall £58,981 £45,000 £103,981 £50,975 £48,122 £4,884
civic duties £57,721 £0 £57,721 £16,200 £37,695 £3,826
committee expenditure £9,452 £0 £9,452 £9,250 £183 £19
WBC toilets £20,795 £0 £20,795 £20,525 £245 £25
neighbourhood warden scheme £48,773 £0 £48,773 £48,000 £702 £71
young people's council £5,167 £0 £5,167 £1,000 £3,783 £384
assets, war memorial, £36,296 £0 £36,296 £20,350 £14,477 £1,469
footway lighting, clock house
grants £33,523 £0 £33,523 £34,000 -£433 -£44
total £907,023 £174,411 £1,081,434 £643,041 £398,000 £40,393
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 02:08 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 01:13 PM)
The only way to either put something in action or dismiss it entirely is to explore the options available. Simon, what do you think?
I think it is perverse that the Town Council should suppress even the exploration of the possibility to self-manage.
I would also like to know how much rent panda pays for her various allotments. You might be surprised is we get an honest answer.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 02:13 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 01:17 PM)
You could always apply the old addage 'if it ain't broke'..
If, bar one, the allotment holders are happy to pay more for their plot, thus reducing the local tax payers subsidy - why not just let them do so?
If, bar one, the allotment holders are happy to pay more for their plot, thus reducing the local tax payers subsidy - why not just let them do so?
To save money? 'We are all in this together'.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 02:18 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 01:23 PM)
Give it time & the rental will be high enough for this to be the case.
But it need not be the case. What is wrong with the principle of working to avoid paying? To me it gives power to people who are not cash rich but have the time.
I agree that if people don't want it, and if it doesn't save money, then it is a non starter, but I don't understand your position here, unless you have concern for possible redundancies?
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 02:34 PM
Simon is now saying that there would be a saving of £75.000. This is yet again a new amount. Can i ask what the civic pomp and largesse has to do with allotments ???
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 02:40 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 10 2011, 02:34 PM)
Simon is now saying that there would be a saving of £75.000. This is yet again a new amount. Can i ask what the civic pomp and largesse has to do with allotments ???
All this could be cleared up if there was a proper open and public debate about it, but the council won't play ball.
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 02:45 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 02:40 PM)
All this could be cleared up if there was a proper open and public debate about it, but the council won't play ball.
I'm not sure if anyone has asked for a full debate on this. One way is to ask a question at one of there meetings
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 02:51 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 02:18 PM)
But it need not be the case. What is wrong with the principle of working to avoid paying? To me it gives power to people who are not cash rich but have the time.
I agree that if people don't want it, and if it doesn't save money, then it is a non starter, but I don't understand your position here, unless you have concern for possible redundancies?
I agree that if people don't want it, and if it doesn't save money, then it is a non starter, but I don't understand your position here, unless you have concern for possible redundancies?
My concern - It sems to me the allotment holders like things as they are & want to keep it that way & don't mind paying for this. Let them be.
Some people like the community, hands on approach, others just like to pay & have it done for them. The best way forward in this allotment debacle might be to start a new allotment at a new locations & have that as a self managed site. Those that want it can rent there.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 02:52 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 10 2011, 02:45 PM)
I'm not sure if anyone has asked for a full debate on this. One way is to ask a question at one of there meetings
This is where the problem starts; the council have allegedly sent Simon to Coventry.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 02:55 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 02:51 PM)
My concern - It sems to me the allotment holders like things as they are & want to keep it that way & don't mind paying for this. Let them be.
You repeatedly ignore the supplementary point that why should the tax payer fund it? Sure keep putting rents up, but that is a regressive policy, and not in keep with the current Big 'S' mantra.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 02:56 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 02:55 PM)
You repeatedly ignore the supplementary point that why should the tax payer fund it? Sure keep putting rents up, but that is a regressive policy, and not in keep with the current Big 'S' mantra.
bollocks to the big S.
Tax payer shouldn't fund it. Put rents up to cover the true costs.
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 02:56 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 02:52 PM)
This is where the problem starts; the council have allegedly sent Simon to Coventry.
Well it doesn't have to be Simon that asks the question. Maybe if someone else asked, the council would know there were more people interested.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 03:06 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 02:52 PM)
This is where the problem starts; the council have allegedly sent Simon to Coventry.
It is a matter of public record that the Council have declared me to be a Vexatious Complainant.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 02:08 PM)
I would also like to know how much rent panda pays for her various allotments. You might be surprised is we get an honest answer.
I would still like an answer panda.
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 03:21 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 10 2011, 02:34 PM)
Simon is now saying that there would be a saving of £75.000. This is yet again a new amount. Can i ask what the civic pomp and largesse has to do with allotments ???
I'm waiting for an answer too
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 03:34 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 03:06 PM)
It is a matter of public record that the Council have declared me to be a Vexatious Complainant.
It would seem that the Newbury Town Council don't have a published policy for Vexatious Complainants. This seems materially unfair as they can make things up without redress.
Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 03:39 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 02:04 PM)
How much exactly is to be saved through self-management is open for discussion, and we have had an honest and open discussion about it here. I have put forward reasoned arguments for the savings to expect from self-management, but there is a legitimate debate about how much of the council's overheads could or should also be saved, and having listed to the arguments, particularly blackdog's argument, I currently feel it's reasonable to expect to save £75k through self-management. That is less than I would like the Council to save because I would expect to see a proportional reining-in of its considerable spending on civic pomp and largesse, but as there is not a direct correlation between these heads and the allotment service I recognise that it is fair not to include them in the possible savings.
My argument is simple - removing allotments from NTC's budget would obviously effect their spending on allotments
ie allotments £43,228 £17,500 £60,728 £21,680 £35,450 £3,598
What I disagree with is that allotment self-management would have any significant effect on the costs of the town hall, civic duties etc. A saving of £43k (less a bit for whatever residual responsibility would lie with NTC as owners of the allotments) is well worth chasing. I just think that inflating this by adding in notional savings from unrelated activities does your cause no good at all.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 03:59 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Mar 10 2011, 03:39 PM)
My argument is simple - removing allotments from NTC's budget would obviously effect their spending on allotments
ie allotments £43,228 £17,500 £60,728 £21,680 £35,450 £3,598
What I disagree with is that allotment self-management would have any significant effect on the costs of the town hall, civic duties etc. A saving of £43k (less a bit for whatever residual responsibility would lie with NTC as owners of the allotments) is well worth chasing. I just think that inflating this by adding in notional savings from unrelated activities does your cause no good at all.
ie allotments £43,228 £17,500 £60,728 £21,680 £35,450 £3,598
What I disagree with is that allotment self-management would have any significant effect on the costs of the town hall, civic duties etc. A saving of £43k (less a bit for whatever residual responsibility would lie with NTC as owners of the allotments) is well worth chasing. I just think that inflating this by adding in notional savings from unrelated activities does your cause no good at all.
Yes, I understand that, you argued that point well previously, and to some degree I accept what you say. Most of the extra £32k I'm expecting to save comes from an apportionment of the £172k of administration.
As I argued previously, the town hall isn't a service, it's office accomodation, and it's cost has to be proportionate to the services provided by the Council. It's concievable that a smaller Council would let some additional part of the building that it currently occupies as part of a post-self-management rationalisation, but I concede that the granularity of what can be let does not necessarily mean that a 15% reduction in the Council's service provision and staffing necessarily yields a 15% reduction in the cost of their office accomodation.
In the same way I would expect to see a proportianate saving in the other non-service heads, but again, I recognise that would not necessarily follow, even though it should.
So a £75k saving is reasonably conservative, including an apportionment of the administration head and some of the towh hall costs, but none of the civic duties, committee costs, grants, and NYPC.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 04:09 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 10 2011, 02:45 PM)
I'm not sure if anyone has asked for a full debate on this. One way is to ask a question at one of there meetings
Yes, I have asked. Several times. I've invited debate on the savings to be made through allotment self-management, through giving the Christmas lights to the TCP, through giving the charter market to anyone who'll take it, and scaling back the civic pomp and largesse. From memory I proposed around £300k of saving.
Not a nibble.
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 04:10 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 03:59 PM)
Yes, I understand that, you argued that point well previously, and to some degree I accept what you say. Most of the extra £32k I'm expecting to save comes from an apportionment of the £172k of administration.
As I argued previously, the town hall isn't a service, it's office accomodation, and it's cost has to be proportionate to the services provided by the Council. It's concievable that a smaller Council would let some additional part of the building that it currently occupies as part of a post-self-management rationalisation, but I concede that the granularity of what can be let does not necessarily mean that a 15% reduction in the Council's service provision and staffing necessarily yields a 15% reduction in the cost of their office accomodation.
In the same way I would expect to see a proportianate saving in the other non-service heads, but again, I recognise that would not necessarily follow, even though it should.
So a £75k saving is reasonably conservative, including an apportionment of the administration head and some of the towh hall costs, but none of the civic duties, committee costs, grants, and NYPC.
As I argued previously, the town hall isn't a service, it's office accomodation, and it's cost has to be proportionate to the services provided by the Council. It's concievable that a smaller Council would let some additional part of the building that it currently occupies as part of a post-self-management rationalisation, but I concede that the granularity of what can be let does not necessarily mean that a 15% reduction in the Council's service provision and staffing necessarily yields a 15% reduction in the cost of their office accomodation.
In the same way I would expect to see a proportianate saving in the other non-service heads, but again, I recognise that would not necessarily follow, even though it should.
So a £75k saving is reasonably conservative, including an apportionment of the administration head and some of the towh hall costs, but none of the civic duties, committee costs, grants, and NYPC.
non service heads???? 15% reduction office accomodation?????? NYPC????? what are you talking about
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 10 2011, 04:14 PM
Is it worth me asking to book the council chamber for a couple of hours so we can have a open debate? Maybe the council could attend and present a case against self management? As far as I know, the council have said that they would enter into a debate, but unless it was supported they would not allow it and that's not an unreasonable position. If somebody approaches them to have this debate and they refuse, one could say Simon has a point. So now it's up to those who support it to speak up, have the debate and see what the outcome is. Simply suggesting there is no point in having a discussion because he said she said won't cut it. The only way to get this resolved either way is to raise the subject formally.
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 04:15 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 04:09 PM)
Yes, I have asked. Several times. I've invited debate on the savings to be made through allotment self-management, through giving the Christmas lights to the TCP, through giving the charter market to anyone who'll take it, and scaling back the civic pomp and largesse. From memory I proposed around £300k of saving.
Not a nibble.
Not a nibble.
well there's another figure now. A saving of £300k so what you are saying is that you could save £300k
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 04:28 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 02:08 PM)
I would also like to know how much rent panda pays for her various allotments. You might be surprised is we get an honest answer.
Why the reluctance to answer Councillor? Surely you're not embarrassed that you don't have to pay for your plots are you? And I suppose you would have to under self-management wouldn't you.
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 04:32 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 04:28 PM)
Why the reluctance to answer Councillor? Surely you're not embarrassed that you don't have to pay for your plots are you? And I suppose you would have to under self-management wouldn't you.
They say the best form of defence is to attack.
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 04:42 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 04:28 PM)
Why the reluctance to answer Councillor? Surely you're not embarrassed that you don't have to pay for your plots are you? And I suppose you would have to under self-management wouldn't you.
Why is it that when someone doesn't agree with you, you resort to comments like this???
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 04:14 PM)
Is it worth me asking to book the council chamber for a couple of hours so we can have a open debate? Maybe the council could attend and present a case against self management? As far as I know, the council have said that they would enter into a debate, but unless it was supported they would not allow it and that's not an unreasonable position. If somebody approaches them to have this debate and they refuse, one could say Simon has a point. So now it's up to those who support it to speak up, have the debate and see what the outcome is. Simply suggesting there is no point in having a discussion because he said she said won't cut it. The only way to get this resolved either way is to raise the subject formally.
Richard, you make a very good point, but I have my reservations, mainly that it would be a complete farce like last year's site meetings. But I think we have to ask the question.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 04:50 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 10 2011, 04:42 PM)
Why is it that when someone doesn't agree with you, you resort to comments like this???
If you have nothing to hide just answer the question.
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 04:54 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 04:49 PM)
Richard, you make a very good point, but I have my reservations, mainly that it would be a complete farce like last year's site meetings. But I think we have to ask the question.
I think the site visits are good. You can ask questions to councillors, they look around the site, they talk to you.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 04:54 PM
Yes Simon, I think you open too many fronts in this 'war'. I say lets keep this to self management costs/savings.
Is it true that people don't have to pay for their plot? Also, is it true that some people have plots but never tend to them and have 'surrogate gardeners'?
Perhaps this whole allotment issue needs washing through?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 05:01 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 04:54 PM)
Yes Simon, I think you open too many fronts in this 'war'. I say lets keep this to self management costs/savings.
Is it true that people don't have to pay for their plot? Also, is it true that some people have plots but never tend to them and have 'surrogate gardeners'?
Perhaps this whole allotment issue needs washing through?
Is it true that people don't have to pay for their plot? Also, is it true that some people have plots but never tend to them and have 'surrogate gardeners'?
Perhaps this whole allotment issue needs washing through?
There was a post at the other place about someone who had plots in the name of his mother, brothr etc etc.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 05:04 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 04:14 PM)
Is it worth me asking to book the council chamber for a couple of hours so we can have a open debate? Maybe the council could attend and present a case against self management? As far as I know, the council have said that they would enter into a debate, but unless it was supported they would not allow it and that's not an unreasonable position. If somebody approaches them to have this debate and they refuse, one could say Simon has a point. So now it's up to those who support it to speak up, have the debate and see what the outcome is. Simply suggesting there is no point in having a discussion because he said she said won't cut it. The only way to get this resolved either way is to raise the subject formally.
From what I have read on this debate on this forum, the council won't enter into a debate as they say there is no support from the allotment holders for self management. Maybe if the came up with some proof for this it might help their stance.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 04:54 PM)
Is it true that people don't have to pay for their plot?
I understand that the site stewards who are appointed by the Council do not pay for their plot, though whether they all take advantage of this offer I can't say. I recognised the comment about my building the site hut to win a competition as something that I understand Cllr Marion Fenn, my site steward, has said, and as it's an unusual thing to say, and as Cllr Fenn has not been the Society's greatest supporter, it occured to me that she and panda might be one and the same.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 04:54 PM)
Also, is it true that some people have plots but never tend to them and have 'surrogate gardeners'?
I've seen stories about that in the press but I have no experience of it happening, though if it did I don't see there's a problem.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 05:14 PM
I've seen stories about that in the press but I have no experience of it happening, though if it did I don't see there's a problem.
unless there is a waiting list....
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 05:25 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 05:04 PM)
From what I have read on this debate on this forum, the council won't enter into a debate as they say there is no support from the allotment holders for self management. Maybe if the came up with some proof for this it might help their stance.
The Council passed a resolution on 1 March 2010 to not discuss self-management. It had nothing to do with the level of support. Indeed, the Council ignored the Society's survey showing 80% support for self-management. It was largely because, as Cllr Sheldon put it, I had slagged off the Council in the NWN.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 05:27 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 05:14 PM)
I've seen stories about that in the press but I have no experience of it happening, though if it did I don't see there's a problem.
unless there is a waiting list....
unless there is a waiting list....
How would a waiting list affect who works the plot?
The Council has an absolute duty under the Allotments and Small Holdings Act 1908 to provide sufficient allotments, so it is delinquent in its legal duty if there is a waiting list.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 05:31 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 05:27 PM)
How would a waiting list affect who works the plot?
The Council has an absolute duty under the Allotments and Small Holdings Act 1908 to provide sufficient allotments, so it is delinquent in its legal duty if there is a waiting list.
The Council has an absolute duty under the Allotments and Small Holdings Act 1908 to provide sufficient allotments, so it is delinquent in its legal duty if there is a waiting list.
Are people allowed to have more than one plot in their own name?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 05:45 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 05:31 PM)
Are people allowed to have more than one plot in their own name?
Yes. Plots used to be quite big but in the last few years they've been let smaller so that people with less time to cultivate aren't excluded, and a very good idea it is too. But it's meant that if you want a big allotment like mine you have to take what you're offered and then wait for another small plot if you want more.
There's no particular legal definition of an allotment in the acts, but an allotment garden has to be less than 40 poles (a pole is 25m2) and used to grow mainly fruit and veg for the consumption of the allotmenteer and her family. That's often interpreted as meaning that no individual can have more than 40 poles, but actually that's not right, it just means someone with more than 40 poles doesn't enjoy the protection of some of the more recent legislation that affects allotment gardens only, and it also means the statutory restriction on growing mainly fruit and veg disappears.
40 poles is an awfully big allotment to dig so in practice it isn't possible to have too many plots.
Of course allotments authorities are entitled to make rules under the 1908 about what they'll let to who so it is possible that councils have a lower limit, though if NTC operate a rationing policy I don't believe it is a formal rule.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 10 2011, 06:20 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 05:04 PM)
From what I have read on this debate on this forum, the council won't enter into a debate as they say there is no support from the allotment holders for self management. Maybe if the came up with some proof for this it might help their stance.
The chief exec of NTC said to me before Christmas he is happy to listen to proposals, but nothing could happen without demand from the allotment holders.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 06:29 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 06:20 PM)
The chief exec of NTC said to me before Christmas he is happy to listen to proposals, but nothing could happen without demand from the allotment holders.
And what if the allotment holders have been busy demanding NTC keep on running things, but just have not made a big song & dance about it?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 06:32 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 06:20 PM)
The chief exec of NTC said to me before Christmas he is happy to listen to proposals, but nothing could happen without demand from the allotment holders.
Richard, if NTC want to peddle this tosh then I think you should leave it up to them, they can speak for themselves if they want to.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2011, 06:52 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 06:29 PM)
And what if the allotment holders have been busy demanding NTC keep on running things, but just have not made a big song & dance about it?
If this had been the case NTC would be shouting it from the rooftops?
Instead of the usual surly silence and fingers crossed the nasty Simon Kirby will go away?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 10 2011, 06:52 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 06:29 PM)
And what if the allotment holders have been busy demanding NTC keep on running things, but just have not made a big song & dance about it?
That's the purpose of having a discussion. It would instantly be clear how many supported it, how many didn't. I'm not saying let's just do it, I'm saying it should be discussed once and for all.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 06:59 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 06:52 PM)
That's the purpose of having a discussion. It would instantly be clear how many supported it, how many didn't. I'm not saying let's just do it, I'm saying it should be discussed once and for all.
Hands up who wants to pay £250 for their allotment. Anyone? That's settled then.
It wouldn't have been difficult for NTC to put send that question out with the bills would it. Zero cost, everyone answers, and then we'd know.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2011, 07:07 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 06:59 PM)
Hands up who wants to pay £250 for their allotment. Anyone? That's settled then.
It wouldn't have been difficult for NTC to put send that question out with the bills would it. Zero cost, everyone answers, and then we'd know.
It wouldn't have been difficult for NTC to put send that question out with the bills would it. Zero cost, everyone answers, and then we'd know.
But the council would not ask that question would they? The council will only ask a question when they know what the answer will be if they conform to the usual practice?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 07:25 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 06:52 PM)
That's the purpose of having a discussion. It would instantly be clear how many supported it, how many didn't. I'm not saying let's just do it, I'm saying it should be discussed once and for all.
You mean make people who have an allotment and are happy with the current state of affairs engage in discussion to say so?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 07:26 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 10 2011, 06:52 PM)
If this had been the case NTC would be shouting it from the rooftops?
Instead of the usual surly silence and fingers crossed the nasty Simon Kirby will go away?
Instead of the usual surly silence and fingers crossed the nasty Simon Kirby will go away?
No you twit, the other allotment holders have not been making a song & dance, not the bloody council!
Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 07:28 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 10 2011, 06:52 PM)
That's the purpose of having a discussion. It would instantly be clear how many supported it, how many didn't. I'm not saying let's just do it, I'm saying it should be discussed once and for all.
You'll never make a politician with talk like this - 'once and for all' - you have got to be joking. Politics is all about having the same argument for centuries.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2011, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 07:26 PM)
No you twit, the other allotment holders have not been making a song & dance, not the bloody council!
Can you run that by me again please?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 09:24 PM
1 dannyboy, with what evidence do you base your, 'we are happy as things are' comment?
2 If it is true, is there not a something a little unhealthy having an allotmenteer as a warden and a town councillor?
3 Shouldn't the council be looking to seeing how self-management might benefit allotmenteers and tax payers alike? I understand Simon Kirkby questioned the veracity of the information the council had when they last pondered the topic.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 09:41 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 09:24 PM)
1 dannyboy, with what evidence do you base your, 'we are happy as things are' comment?
2 If it is true, is there not a something a little unhealthy having an allotmenteer as a warden and a town councillor?
3 Shouldn't the council be looking to seeing how self-management might benefit allotmenteers and tax payers alike? I understand Simon Kirkby questioned the veracity of the information the council had when they last pondered the topic.
2 If it is true, is there not a something a little unhealthy having an allotmenteer as a warden and a town councillor?
3 Shouldn't the council be looking to seeing how self-management might benefit allotmenteers and tax payers alike? I understand Simon Kirkby questioned the veracity of the information the council had when they last pondered the topic.
their lack of support. Where are all the calls for self management?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 09:45 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 09:41 PM)
their lack of support. Where are all the calls for self management?
We haven't had much from the 'other side' either, however; if Simon's accusations have any basis in truth, that might not be too far away!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 10:00 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 09:41 PM)
their lack of support. Where are all the calls for self management?
Assuming an allotmenteer was impertinent enough to believe her opinion worth expressing, how would she express it? Would she write to the NWN or stand outside the Council offices with a placard? Because through any other route it'll be suppressed.
When the Town Council want our opinion they'll give it to us.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 10:29 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00f53g5/Chris_Goreham_At_Breakfast_Fuel_prices_in_the_east_hit_new_high. He's secretary of the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston Allotment Association - a self-managed federation of about 800 plots that receives no subsidy from the tax-payer and charges about 1/3 the rent in Newbury.
Posted by: user23 Mar 10 2011, 10:40 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 10:00 PM)
Assuming an allotmenteer was impertinent enough to believe her opinion worth expressing, how would she express it? Would she write to the NWN or stand outside the Council offices with a placard? Because through any other route it'll be suppressed.
When the Town Council want our opinion they'll give it to us.
They could post it on the Internet.
When the Town Council want our opinion they'll give it to us.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 11:27 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 10:29 PM)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00f53g5/Chris_Goreham_At_Breakfast_Fuel_prices_in_the_east_hit_new_high. He's secretary of the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston Allotment Association - a self-managed federation of about 800 plots that receives no subsidy from the tax-payer and charges about 1/3 the rent in Newbury.
I'm not saying self management isn't cheaper. I'm saying your fellow allotment holders might not want it & might be happy paying higher rents to reduce the tax payer subsidy instead.
I might be wrong, but growing veg strikes me as a rather sedentary, private hobby where you go to be on your own & be by yourself. The thought of the calm being shattered by community & committees might be a total anathema to the vast majority......
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 11:28 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 09:45 PM)
We haven't had much from the 'other side' either, however; if Simon's accusations have any basis in truth, that might not be too far away!
So far we have heard one from each side of the fence.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 11:46 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 11:27 PM)
I'm not saying self management isn't cheaper. I'm saying your fellow allotment holders might not want it & might be happy paying higher rents to reduce the tax payer subsidy instead.
Might, might, might.
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 11:27 PM)
I might be wrong, but growing veg strikes me as a rather sedentary, private hobby where you go to be on your own & be by yourself. The thought of the calm being shattered by community & committees might be a total anathema to the vast majority......
And it might not, but where did this social conscience suddenly come from?
Is see it this way.
We NEED to stop spending money where it can be avoided. This seems an area where it might be possible to do so, but cuts means someone looses something. Councils are obliged to provide allotments, but I understand that they are not obliged to pay for it.
'Giving' allotments to people who are prepared to 'work for them', rather than based on the ability to pay seems progressive and a good example of encouraging a society, albeit not necessarily a big one
Posted by: panda Mar 10 2011, 11:54 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 06:59 PM)
Hands up who wants to pay £250 for their allotment. Anyone? That's settled then.
It wouldn't have been difficult for NTC to put send that question out with the bills would it. Zero cost, everyone answers, and then we'd know.
It wouldn't have been difficult for NTC to put send that question out with the bills would it. Zero cost, everyone answers, and then we'd know.
Next years increase is 0%. no increase in the rent
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 12:03 AM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 10 2011, 11:54 PM)
Next years increase is 0%. no increase in the rent
And how much will this cost the tax payer? Meanwhile; we are closing day centres.
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 12:11 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 12:03 AM)
And how much will this cost the tax payer? Meanwhile; we are closing day centres.
I think it's a cost of £40.000 to the tax payer. I pay £6.94 per pole per year for my plot. I think that is great value.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 12:30 AM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 12:11 AM)
I think it's a cost of £40.000 to the tax payer. I pay £6.94 per pole per year for my plot. I think that is great value.
I'm sure you do!
Do you think it is right that the tax payer pays this £40k?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 11 2011, 08:19 AM
If the costs can be reduced, I'm all for it. Even if a discussion takes place and there is support, the group which takes on self management would have to be a formally recognised organisation with a proper constitution to ensure we don't have any mini Gadaffi style leadership. If it was a democratic organisation, I would say that there is no reason for anyone to fear self management.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 09:32 AM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 12:11 AM)
I pay £6.94 per pole per year for my plot.
Do you indeed. Show us the receipt.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2011, 09:50 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 11:46 PM)
Might, might, might.
And it might not, but where did this social conscience suddenly come from?
Is see it this way.
We NEED to stop spending money where it can be avoided. This seems an area where it might be possible to do so, but cuts means someone looses something. Councils are obliged to provide allotments, but I understand that they are not obliged to pay for it.
'Giving' allotments to people who are prepared to 'work for them', rather than based on the ability to pay seems progressive and a good example of encouraging a society, albeit not necessarily a big one
And it might not, but where did this social conscience suddenly come from?
Is see it this way.
We NEED to stop spending money where it can be avoided. This seems an area where it might be possible to do so, but cuts means someone looses something. Councils are obliged to provide allotments, but I understand that they are not obliged to pay for it.
'Giving' allotments to people who are prepared to 'work for them', rather than based on the ability to pay seems progressive and a good example of encouraging a society, albeit not necessarily a big one
Might/maybe/perhaps/if/possibly are all the right words in this debate.
I agree that the allotments should not be funded by the tax payer. It is a leisure activity and a hangover from a past age.
No different from a debate on any council asset being handed over to those that use it for them to run & manage.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 11 2011, 11:12 AM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 12:11 AM)
I think it's a cost of £40.000 to the tax payer. I pay £6.94 per pole per year for my plot. I think that is great value.
Is it alot of money for tax payers to pay, but I feel it is worthy. Yes it is a hobby/leisure activity but it is not money being wasted, MOST people use their plots regularly and get more out of it then just vegetables. What I think is a waste if when I am at the allotment and see plots that have been unkept and not used for ages. This plot could be given to someone else on the waiting list instead because at the moment it just looks a mess.
And yes I know Day Centers are being closed but that is another argument....
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 11:27 AM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 11:12 AM)
Is it alot of money for tax payers to pay, but I feel it is worthy. Yes it is a hobby/leisure activity but it is not money being wasted, MOST people use their plots regularly and get more out of it then just vegetables. What I think is a waste if when I am at the allotment and see plots that have been unkept and not used for ages. This plot could be given to someone else on the waiting list instead because at the moment it just looks a mess.
And yes I know Day Centers are being closed but that is another argument....
And yes I know Day Centers are being closed but that is another argument....
I don't think it is 'another argument'. If an alternative funding method can be established, I think we should explore it.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 11 2011, 11:34 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 11:27 AM)
I don't think it is 'another argument'. If an alternative funding method can be established, I think we should explore it.
I don't think we can use the excuse that Day Centers are closing because tax payers pay for allotments. Day Centers are another argument because there should be NO reason why they should be closed at all. The Government should be paying to keep these open regardless.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 11:43 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 10 2011, 11:27 PM)
I might be wrong, but growing veg strikes me as a rather sedentary, private hobby where you go to be on your own & be by yourself. The thought of the calm being shattered by community & committees might be a total anathema to the vast majority......
Dannyboy, you're pretty much spot-on with your analysis. Allotmenteers want to be left alone to potter and relax, and at one time the Town Council, and NDC before them, ran the service very sensitively. The officers we dealt with were friendly and relaxed, the stewards kept a low profile and kept things ticking over, and the council pretty much left us to ourselves.
At Wash Common we didn't need a site association, we just did our own site maintenance without any fuss. Basically three or four of us, me amoungst them, would cut sections of the central grass path when we had our mowers up, and I'd clear out the back ditch each year. I even laid my section of allotment hedge and gapped it up - that alone cost me more than my annual rent but I was happy to do it because I enjoy my allotment.
And then that all changed. There was a regieme change at the Council, both officers and councillors, and we got a new site steward too. People started to get picked on, the council stopped us doing our own maintenace so they could build a grounds-maintenance empire, they imposed a whole new bunch of rules, and then started to ramp up the rents - all without any consultation whatsoever.
Eventually I started the site association to speak up for those who were being bullied and give the allotmenteers a voice, but that put me in the firing line and the rest is history. Those who benefit from the new regieme have no intention of giving up what they've got, and that is what this is all about.
I didn't particularly want self-management. I wanted a benign Town Council who let us get on with our allotmenteering in peace. I don't believe self-management has a hope of working now because that self-interest has so soured the debate - and I believe that was a deliberate and explicit policy.
The cost to the tax-payer is the issue that drives me least. I'm a tax-payer and I am indignant that the Big Fat State is bleeding us dry, but that is just part of a deeper-seated malignant arrogance at the Town Council and it is this that pushed me over the edge. To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 11:53 AM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 11:34 AM)
I don't think we can use the excuse that Day Centers are closing because tax payers pay for allotments.
Nor am I, but in principle it is true.
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 11:34 AM)
Day Centers are another argument because there should be NO reason why they should be closed at all. The Government should be paying to keep these open regardless.
While that might be a morally reasonable point of view, it isn't what is happening.
This still does not trump the idea that if savings can be made to the tax payer, those initiatives should be properly reviewed. When does that not sound like a good idea?
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 11:43 AM)
The cost to the tax-payer is the issue that drives me least.
I understand that, but it is the only argument that could achieve what you covet.
Saying the council have stuck their nose in and you want them out is a hiding to nothing.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 11 2011, 12:04 PM
If there is proof that stopping our tax money to pay for allotments will keep day centers open, then I am all for it.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 12:08 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 12:04 PM)
If there is proof that stopping our tax money to pay for allotments will keep day centers open, then I am all for it.
That isn't the argument. Please try to understand before one of us dies of old age.
We have a possible way of keeping allotments without any cost to the tax payer and maintaining the service. This will mean the tax can go on something else possibly more worthy, or something where cuts are difficult to make without a loss of service.
Can you not understand what I mean?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 12:18 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 11:53 AM)
I understand that, but it is the only argument that could achieve what you covet.
Saying the council have stuck their nose in and you want them out is a hiding to nothing.
Saying the council have stuck their nose in and you want them out is a hiding to nothing.
Yes, I'm open about that.
I was naive enough to think that the tories on the Council would immediately grasp the opportunity to Big-Societize the allotments and save a serious wedge of tax because self-management is just so mainstream. Turns out their motivation is more, urm, complicated.
I hoped that Richard Benyon might be able to encourage them to do it. The Town Council's official position is that their officers will consider correctly submitted proposals, and without wanting to speak for Richard Benyon it is my understanding that he believed what the Town Council told him.
However, without support from my fellow allotmenteers I can't put a credible proposal together, and I won't get the support of my fellow allotmenteers if they would have to oppose the Council's obvious antagonism towards self-management. Allotmenteers know that I'm a marked man and they don't want any of that to rub off on them.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 11 2011, 12:28 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 12:08 PM)
That isn't the argument. Please try to understand before one of us dies of old age.
We have a possible way of keeping allotments without any cost to the tax payer and maintaining the service. This will mean the tax can go on something else possibly more worthy, or something where cuts are difficult to make without a loss of service.
Can you not understand what I mean?
We have a possible way of keeping allotments without any cost to the tax payer and maintaining the service. This will mean the tax can go on something else possibly more worthy, or something where cuts are difficult to make without a loss of service.
Can you not understand what I mean?
Yes I understand what you mean
It has been mentioned a few times that 'Day centers are closing, yet we pay for allotments out of tax money'....That is why I mentioned it. Of course the money saved could be used elsewhere, on anything, but I still feel allotments are a worthy cause and I am happy to pay for it out of tax money, even though I don't own a allotment.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 12:31 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 12:18 PM)
However, without support from my fellow allotmenteers I can't put a credible proposal together, and I won't get the support of my fellow allotmenteers if they would have to oppose the Council's obvious antagonism towards self-management. Allotmenteers know that I'm a marked man and they don't want any of that to rub off on them.
This is why one needs to demonstrate the benefits of Self Management if there are are reasonable cost savings to be had.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 12:37 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 12:28 PM)
Yes I understand what you mean
I'm not sure you do.
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 12:28 PM)
It has been mentioned a few times that 'Day centers are closing, yet we pay for allotments out of tax money'....That is why I mentioned it. Of course the money saved could be used elsewhere, on anything, but I still feel allotments are a worthy cause and I am happy to pay for it out of tax money, even though I don't own a allotment.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems irrational to me. You seem to have made your mind up before the debate has been had. If £40k is realistic, how many carers is would that finance? Set against allotmenteers getting the money where they need not?
Of course, if it is found that the savings cannot be made that would make it worth while, then so be it, let the present situation continue. Although in the case of Wash Common, I am not sure how ethical it is to have a local councillor as a warden, if that is true.
Posted by: blackdog Mar 11 2011, 12:38 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 12:28 PM)
Yes I understand what you mean It has been mentioned a few times that 'Day centers are closing, yet we pay for allotments out of tax money'....That is why I mentioned it. Of course the money saved could be used elsewhere, on anything, but I still feel allotments are a worthy cause and I am happy to pay for it out of tax money, even though I don't own a allotment.
It has been mentioned a few times that 'Day centers are closing, yet we pay for allotments out of tax money'....That is why I mentioned it. Of course the money saved could be used elsewhere, on anything, but I still feel allotments are a worthy cause and I am happy to pay for it out of tax money, even though I don't own a allotment.There are two issues here.
1. Allotments are paid out of Newbury Town Council's budget (the Newbury parish precept bit of your council tax if you live in Newbury). Day centres are (were) paid for by West Berkshire Council's budget (the main bit of your council tax).
2. Allotments cost NTC £43k a year, WBC are saving £ millions by closing the day centres - the £43k would probably only keep them open for a day or so.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 12:41 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Mar 11 2011, 12:38 PM)
2. Allotments cost NTC £43k a year, WBC are saving £ millions by closing the day centres - the £43k would probably only keep them open for a day or so.
How many home helps would it finance? But lets not get stuck on this particular example - which is all it was. It is money spent that needs not, and might be money that could used elsewhere.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 11 2011, 12:48 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 12:37 PM)
I'm not sure you do.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems irrational to me. You seem to have made your mind up before the debate has been had. If £40k is realistic, how many carers is would that finance? Set against allotmenteers getting the money where they need not?
Of course, if it is found that the savings cannot be made that would make it worth while, then so be it, let the present situation continue. Although I am not sure how ethical it is to have a local councillor as a warden, if that is true.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems irrational to me. You seem to have made your mind up before the debate has been had. If £40k is realistic, how many carers is would that finance? Set against allotmenteers getting the money where they need not?
Of course, if it is found that the savings cannot be made that would make it worth while, then so be it, let the present situation continue. Although I am not sure how ethical it is to have a local councillor as a warden, if that is true.
Irrational? Right okay....
Not many and not for very long. 40k is not that much money Andy, it would not go very far in any other worthwhile business you are suggesting. Again, it does not bother me that the allotment fund comes from NTC budget. 40k is not a HUGE amount IMO
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 12:58 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 12:48 PM)
Irrational? Right okay....
Not many and not for very long. 40k is not that much money Andy, it would not go very far in any other worthwhile business you are suggesting. Again, it does not bother me that the allotment fund comes from NTC budget. 40k is not a HUGE amount IMO
Not many and not for very long. 40k is not that much money Andy, it would not go very far in any other worthwhile business you are suggesting. Again, it does not bother me that the allotment fund comes from NTC budget. 40k is not a HUGE amount IMO
£40k not much money??? That is assuming it is only £40k. It might be more, it might be less. Why not investigate it? Yours is irrational because I am staggered that people think £40k is not much money and is not worth saving! This attitude might explain some of the financial mess we are in. Ever heard of look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves?
If £40k ain't worth it, some people were upset at how much money it would cost the NTC for a hydrogeological survey in Victoria Park. £40k would pay for one every year for the next 4 years!!!
Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 11 2011, 01:04 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 12:58 PM)
£40k not much money??? That is assuming it is only £40k. It might be more, it might be less. Why not have investigate it? Yours is irrational because I am staggered that people think £40k is not much money and is not worth saving! This attitude might explain some of the financial mess we are in. Ever heard of look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves?
If £40k ain't worth it, some people were upset at how much money it would cost the NTC for a hydrogeological survey in Victoria Park. £40k would pay for one every year for the next 4 years!!!
If £40k ain't worth it, some people were upset at how much money it would cost the NTC for a hydrogeological survey in Victoria Park. £40k would pay for one every year for the next 4 years!!!
Might be this, might be that...I don't want to investigate it because I am happy that it pays for allotments!!! I think allotments are worthwhile, you don't - fair enough. You think it is worth saving, brilliant, that's fine - I just hope when I get one in later life it isn't too expensive, and doesn't stops me having a hobby because people like you are trying to stop it.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 01:08 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 12:48 PM)
Not many and not for very long. 40k is not that much money Andy, it would not go very far in any other worthwhile business you are suggesting. Again, it does not bother me that the allotment fund comes from NTC budget. 40k is not a HUGE amount IMO
Thing is, to get self-management the Town Council you'd need to bust them up because the regime will not get off their gravy train without a fight. But once you've broken the regime it's not just allotment, it's the market, the Christmas lights, the civic pomp, the grants to cronies, the young people's council etc, etc. The Town Council spend the best part of £1M and it's simple to find £300k of savings without affecting any service, and if you look carefully at how the grounds maintenance of the parks and cemetaries is done I bet you'll find more still - all without cutting the councillors' 60p per mile travel allowance!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 01:04 PM)
Might be this, might be that...I don't want to investigate it because I am happy that it pays for allotments!!! I think allotments are worthwhile, you don't - fair enough. You think it is worth saving, brilliant, that's fine - I just hope when I get one in later life it isn't too expensive, and doesn't stops me having a hobby because people like you are trying to stop it.
You're missing the point. Self-management runs a better, cheaper service than a council can. Council run it costs maybe £140 per plot to administer, but self-managed that's more like £5. That makes the rents cheaper, but it still generates more cash for capital investment than through Council-managed so new sites can be opened to clear the waiting list, toilets can be installed, fences mended, site huts built, etc. If you want an allotment when you're older your best bet is to support self-management before the council price us off our sites and sell them for development.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 01:22 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 01:04 PM)
Might be this, might be that...I don't want to investigate it because I am happy that it pays for allotments!!!
'Jesus wept...'
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 01:04 PM)
I think allotments are worthwhile, you don't - fair enough.
Have you read anything I have said??? Where did I say I don't think allotments are worthwhile???
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 01:04 PM)
You think it is worth saving, brilliant, that's fine - I just hope when I get one in later life it isn't too expensive, and doesn't stops me having a hobby because people like you are trying to stop it.
Who said anything about stopping it for heaven's sake!!!!
Here goes again:
I SAY: THE ALLOTMENTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE SELF-MANAGED AND FINANCED; SAVING COUNCIL TAX IN THE PROCESS; LETS HAVE A FEASIBILITY STUDY - WHAT IS ANTI-ALLOTMENTS ABOUT THAT!!!!!!
Get it now?
Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 11 2011, 01:27 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 01:22 PM)
'Jesus wept...'
Have you read anything I have said??? Where did I say I don't think allotments are worthwhile???
Who said anything about stopping it for heaven's sake!!!!
Here goes again:
I SAY: THE ALLOTMENTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE SELF-MANAGED AND FINANCED; SAVING COUNCIL TAX IN THE PROCESS; LETS HAVE A FEASIBILITY STUDY - WHAT IS ANTI-ALLOTMENTS ABOUT THAT!!!!!!
get it now?
Have you read anything I have said??? Where did I say I don't think allotments are worthwhile???
Who said anything about stopping it for heaven's sake!!!!
Here goes again:
I SAY: THE ALLOTMENTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE SELF-MANAGED AND FINANCED; SAVING COUNCIL TAX IN THE PROCESS; LETS HAVE A FEASIBILITY STUDY - WHAT IS ANTI-ALLOTMENTS ABOUT THAT!!!!!!
get it now?
I don't mean you want stopping allotments (anti/worthwhile) all together, but stopping it being paid by the Council tax. I do understand what you are saying, no need to shout, if I remember correctly you wept liked a baby when I last wrote to you in capitals
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 01:33 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 01:27 PM)
I don't mean you want stopping allotments (anti/worthwhile) all together, but stopping it being paid by the Council tax. I do understand what you are saying, no need to shout, if I remember correctly you wept liked a baby when I last wrote to you in capitals
Yes, but I meant to shout, you claimed you didn't.
You 'want' to spend money on something that need not be spent. Under the circumstances, how is that rational?
Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 11 2011, 01:42 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 01:33 PM)
Yes, but I meant to shout, you claimed you didn't.
You 'want' to spend money on something that need not be spent. Under the circumstances, how is that rational?
You 'want' to spend money on something that need not be spent. Under the circumstances, how is that rational?
Exactly, I never shouted, that is why I claimed I didn't. I used the odd word in capitals to express how I felt. Was not shouting with the odd word out of a sentence. Funny how you think it is now acceptable to now shout at me, when you spat your dummy out last time
The money is and has already been spent for a long time, I see no reason to change. Again 40K (might be more/might be less in your words) is not a MASSIVE amount of money. I suspect if you had an allotment you would think different.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 01:43 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 01:22 PM)
I SAY: THE ALLOTMENTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE SELF-MANAGED AND FINANCED; SAVING COUNCIL TAX IN THE PROCESS; LETS HAVE A FEASIBILITY STUDY.
Now that is an idea.
Pointless asking the Council to organise it of course, but I wonder if someone like Richard Garvie might be interested. Ask the Town Council for a budget from their Big Society fund and arrange some trips to self-managed sites - I'll happily find sites willing to accomodate us. Invite some councillors and allotmenteers and Bob's your uncle.
You might be interested in reading up on self-management
http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/ari/documents/gardenersincharge.pdf.
http://www.btinternet.com/~richard.wiltshire/lga4.htm
http://www.nsalg.org.uk/uploads/article459/Notes%20on%20self-management.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmenvtra/560/56002.htm
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/9027597
To quote the LGA guide:
QUOTE
The guide advocates the devolution of management responsibilities to allotment associations wherever they have the capacity and enthusiasm to accept them. It also encourages local authorities to provide ongoing
support to associations, which provide an entirely free and voluntary public service on their behalf. Allotment
support to associations, which provide an entirely free and voluntary public service on their behalf. Allotment
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 02:39 PM
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 01:42 PM)
Exactly, I never shouted, that is why I claimed I didn't. I used the odd word in capitals to express how I felt. Was not shouting with the odd word out of a sentence. Funny how you think it is now acceptable to now shout at me, when you spat your dummy out last time
I don't think it is acceptable, but your apparent inability to acknowledge what I am saying has annoyed me. Why anyone would want to be a councillor I don't know.
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Mar 11 2011, 01:42 PM)
The money is and has already been spent for a long time, I see no reason to change. Again 40K (might be more/might be less in your words) is not a MASSIVE amount of money. I suspect if you had an allotment you would think different.
"Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie..."
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 04:06 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 11:43 AM)
Dannyboy, you're pretty much spot-on with your analysis. Allotmenteers want to be left alone to potter and relax, and at one time the Town Council, and NDC before them, ran the service very sensitively. The officers we dealt with were friendly and relaxed, the stewards kept a low profile and kept things ticking over, and the council pretty much left us to ourselves.
At Wash Common we didn't need a site association, we just did our own site maintenance without any fuss. Basically three or four of us, me amoungst them, would cut sections of the central grass path when we had our mowers up, and I'd clear out the back ditch each year. I even laid my section of allotment hedge and gapped it up - that alone cost me more than my annual rent but I was happy to do it because I enjoy my allotment.
And then that all changed. There was a regieme change at the Council, both officers and councillors, and we got a new site steward too. People started to get picked on, the council stopped us doing our own maintenace so they could build a grounds-maintenance empire, they imposed a whole new bunch of rules, and then started to ramp up the rents - all without any consultation whatsoever.
Eventually I started the site association to speak up for those who were being bullied and give the allotmenteers a voice, but that put me in the firing line and the rest is history. Those who benefit from the new regieme have no intention of giving up what they've got, and that is what this is all about.
I didn't particularly want self-management. I wanted a benign Town Council who let us get on with our allotmenteering in peace. I don't believe self-management has a hope of working now because that self-interest has so soured the debate - and I believe that was a deliberate and explicit policy.
The cost to the tax-payer is the issue that drives me least. I'm a tax-payer and I am indignant that the Big Fat State is bleeding us dry, but that is just part of a deeper-seated malignant arrogance at the Town Council and it is this that pushed me over the edge. To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.
At Wash Common we didn't need a site association, we just did our own site maintenance without any fuss. Basically three or four of us, me amoungst them, would cut sections of the central grass path when we had our mowers up, and I'd clear out the back ditch each year. I even laid my section of allotment hedge and gapped it up - that alone cost me more than my annual rent but I was happy to do it because I enjoy my allotment.
And then that all changed. There was a regieme change at the Council, both officers and councillors, and we got a new site steward too. People started to get picked on, the council stopped us doing our own maintenace so they could build a grounds-maintenance empire, they imposed a whole new bunch of rules, and then started to ramp up the rents - all without any consultation whatsoever.
Eventually I started the site association to speak up for those who were being bullied and give the allotmenteers a voice, but that put me in the firing line and the rest is history. Those who benefit from the new regieme have no intention of giving up what they've got, and that is what this is all about.
I didn't particularly want self-management. I wanted a benign Town Council who let us get on with our allotmenteering in peace. I don't believe self-management has a hope of working now because that self-interest has so soured the debate - and I believe that was a deliberate and explicit policy.
The cost to the tax-payer is the issue that drives me least. I'm a tax-payer and I am indignant that the Big Fat State is bleeding us dry, but that is just part of a deeper-seated malignant arrogance at the Town Council and it is this that pushed me over the edge. To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.
Really this isn't about self managment, it's about simon and his vendetta on the council. In my opinion Simon will do anything to get back at the council. It is a one man hate campaign and nothing else. He also says he wants to get rid of the market, xmas lights Newbury's civic history of 100s years old. but many people in Newbury enjoy all of this stuff. I think if it was left to simon he would sell newbury town just to satisfy his ego.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 04:43 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 04:06 PM)
Really this isn't about self managment, it's about simon and his vendetta on the council. In my opinion Simon will do anything to get back at the council. It is a one man hate campaign and nothing else. He also says he wants to get rid of the market, xmas lights Newbury's civic history of 100s years old. but many people in Newbury enjoy all of this stuff. I think if it was left to simon he would sell newbury town just to satisfy his ego.
And what is your reason d'etre here? If what he says is true, I don't blame him.
Where did he say he wanted rid of the market, xmas lights?
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 04:52 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 01:08 PM)
Thing is, to get self-management the Town Council you'd need to bust them up because the regime will not get off their gravy train without a fight. But once you've broken the regime it's not just allotment, it's the market, the Christmas lights, the civic pomp, the grants to cronies, the young people's council etc, etc. The Town Council spend the best part of £1M and it's simple to find £300k of savings without affecting any service, and if you look carefully at how the grounds maintenance of the parks and cemetaries is done I bet you'll find more still - all without cutting the councillors' 60p per mile travel allowance!
A few months ago he said he could save £200k now its £300k. Its different amounts everytime. You never know if he is making it up or not. Its never the same.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 11 2011, 04:53 PM
Panda, I see where you are coming from and I personally would never support deparishing completely. But self management is something that should be discussed, and I thought councillors would support it on the basis that it fits with this whole "big society" theme that is a buzz word amongst councillors right now.
If it saves money brilliant. If it has support, let's do it. If it saves money but the support isn't there, it doesn't happen. But let's not stifle debate because of a dispute between the proposer and certain people.
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 04:58 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 11 2011, 04:53 PM)
Panda, I see where you are coming from and I personally would never support deparishing completely. But self management is something that should be discussed, and I thought councillors would support it on the basis that it fits with this whole "big society" theme that is a buzz word amongst councillors right now.
If it saves money brilliant. If it has support, let's do it. If it saves money but the support isn't there, it doesn't happen. But let's not stifle debate because of a dispute between the proposer and certain people.
If it saves money brilliant. If it has support, let's do it. If it saves money but the support isn't there, it doesn't happen. But let's not stifle debate because of a dispute between the proposer and certain people.
yes i agree. If there is support for self managment it should be looked into. But Simon and his hate campaign does not help this at all.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 04:58 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 04:52 PM)
A few months ago he said he could save £200k now its £300k. Its different amounts everytime. You never know if he is making it up or not. Its never the same.
That is all irrelevant, and indeed, your posting makes me realise you are simply doing the same thing you accuse him of.
The point is: the council should be duty bound to make savings where practical, whether it is £3k, £30k or £400k. Unless we can access the books, most people can only speculate.
What have you got against that?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 05:03 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 11 2011, 04:53 PM)
If it saves money brilliant. If it has support, let's do it. If it saves money but the support isn't there, it doesn't happen.
I disagree, should self management prove to be viable, as a tax payer, I insist that it should be a condition of having an allotment.
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 04:58 PM)
yes i agree. If there is support for self managment it should be looked into. But Simon and his hate campaign does not help this at all.
Simon Kirkby should not be used as the excuse not to consider, or promote self management.
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 05:03 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 04:58 PM)
That is all irrelevant, and indeed, your posting makes me realise you are simply doing the same thing you accuse him of.
The point is: the council should be duty bound to make saving where practical, whether it is £3k, £30k or £400k. Unless we can access the books, most people can only speculate.
What have you got against that?
The point is: the council should be duty bound to make saving where practical, whether it is £3k, £30k or £400k. Unless we can access the books, most people can only speculate.
What have you got against that?
I have nothing agaist that at all. The thing is I cant see how the council can save 300k. You have to be realistic
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 05:06 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 05:03 PM)
Simon Kirkby should not be used as the excuse not to consider, or promote self management.
If people want it then lets look into it. without any vendetta
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 05:08 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:03 PM)
I have nothing agaist that at all. The thing is I cant see how the council can save 300k. You have to be realistic
That isn't my argument. Small steps, lets see if we can save £40k! Despite what roseaddledbrain thinks, £40k is a useful amount of money.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 05:09 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:06 PM)
If people want it then lets look into it. without any vendetta
Will you be specific. Give some concrete examples of this vendetta please.
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 05:10 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 05:08 PM)
That isn't my argument. Small steps, lets see if we can save £40k! Despite what roseaddledbrain thinks, £40k is a useful amount of money.
sorry but what does roseaddledbrain mean???
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 05:11 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:06 PM)
If people want it then lets look into it. without any vendetta
That is NOT my view. My view is the council should be actively looking to off-load the costs of services on to the users and other parties where practical. Simon Kirkby may just be a side show for all I care. He is irrelevant in all this in my view.
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:10 PM)
sorry but what does roseaddledbrain mean???
You need to read more of this thread.
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 05:09 PM)
Will you be specific. Give some concrete examples of this vendetta please.
I can't believe you have just said that!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 05:13 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:12 PM)
I can't believe you have just said that!!!!!!!!
Then you should find this easy to answer.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 11 2011, 05:14 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 05:03 PM)
I disagree, should self management prove to be viable, as a tax payer, I insist that it should be a condition of having an allotment.
It can only realistically happen if there is enough people to make it possible. I think that Simon has a lot of support, but people are trying to dismiss the idea of a meeting on the basis that Simon is a one man band. I'm just saying that if it was just Simon, it couldn't happen.
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 05:15 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 05:13 PM)
Then you should find this easy to answer.
You only have to look at what he puts on here.
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 05:17 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 11 2011, 05:14 PM)
It can only realistically happen if there is enough people to make it possible. I think that Simon has a lot of support, but people are trying to dismiss the idea of a meeting on the basis that Simon is a one man band. I'm just saying that if it was just Simon, it couldn't happen.
I dont think Simon has any support, not from tenents
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 05:18 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:10 PM)
sorry but what does roseaddledbrain mean???
sorry got you now
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 05:22 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:18 PM)
sorry got you now
Although probably not funny to some, it was meant as a joke.
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:17 PM)
I dont think Simon has any support, not from tenents
I think it is true that Simon is belligerent, but I don't think that should prevent the council from looking to save any money possible.
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 05:28 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 05:22 PM)
Although probably not funny to some, it was meant as a joke.
I think it is true that Simon is belligerent, but I don't think that should prevent the council from looking to save any money possible.
I think it is true that Simon is belligerent, but I don't think that should prevent the council from looking to save any money possible.
i'm with you on that one
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2011, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 11 2011, 05:14 PM)
It can only realistically happen if there is enough people to make it possible. I think that Simon has a lot of support, but people are trying to dismiss the idea of a meeting on the basis that Simon is a one man band. I'm just saying that if it was just Simon, it couldn't happen.
Why do you think he has support?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 06:58 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 11 2011, 06:45 PM)
Why do you think he has support?
The Society's membership survey showed 85% support for self-management. Didn't I mention that already?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2011, 07:00 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 06:58 PM)
The Society's membership survey showed 85% support for self-management. Didn't I mention that already?
You did, but you can't believe everything that is posted on forums can you?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 07:01 PM
Is it true that a Wash Common allotment warden is also a Falkland Ward councillor?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 07:07 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 05:12 PM)
I can't believe you have just said that!!!!!!!!
Yes, I thought that might be your response. Your vendetta is my legitimate complaint. Take the rent increase. It is unenforceable because of consumer protection legislation. You know that, but you chose to impose it anyway because you didn't think anyone would risk eviction for £20. But of course I did because it would be hard to find a more obvious example of an unfair term. And then rather than admit what you did you decide to give me notice to quit out of anger and vindictiveness, and I'll beat that too because the court won't allow you to make a monkey out of the law.
Now my banging on about what you did in a public forum is a legitimate protest. This Town Council is offended that anyone should criticise it or oppose it, but this is a free country, and frankly the Town Council is a joke, so you're going to have to deal with it.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 07:14 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2011, 07:01 PM)
Is it true that a Wash Common allotment warden is also a Falkland Ward councillor?
You can find the quote in http://www.newbury.gov.uk/Agendas10/agendacs100301.pdf.
QUOTE
Wash Common – Steward (and Councillor) Marion Fenn in attendance
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 11 2011, 07:17 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 07:07 PM)
Yes, I thought that might be your response. Your vendetta is my legitimate complaint. Take the rent increase. It is unenforceable because of consumer protection legislation. You know that, but you chose to impose it anyway because you didn't think anyone would risk eviction for £20. But of course I did because it would be hard to find a more obvious example of an unfair term. And then rather than admit what you did you decide to give me notice to quit out of anger and vindictiveness, and I'll beat that too because the court won't allow you to make a monkey out of the law.
Now my banging on about what you did in a public forum is a legitimate protest. This Town Council is offended that anyone should criticise it or oppose it, but this is a free country, and frankly the Town Council is a joke, so you're going to have to deal with it.
Now my banging on about what you did in a public forum is a legitimate protest. This Town Council is offended that anyone should criticise it or oppose it, but this is a free country, and frankly the Town Council is a joke, so you're going to have to deal with it.
Not only over the allotments but just look at the latest fiasco at Middle Close? Just think back over different issues over the last couple of years? Total waste of taxpayers money in my opinion?
The whole local authority system needs a total overhaul? Unless they represent the taxpayers then they are not fit for purpose?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 07:17 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 07:07 PM)
Yes, I thought that might be your response. Your vendetta is my legitimate complaint. Take the rent increase. It is unenforceable because of consumer protection legislation. You know that, but you chose to impose it anyway because you didn't think anyone would risk eviction for £20. But of course I did because it would be hard to find a more obvious example of an unfair term. And then rather than admit what you did you decide to give me notice to quit out of anger and vindictiveness, and I'll beat that too because the court won't allow you to make a monkey out of the law.
Now my banging on about what you did in a public forum is a legitimate protest. This Town Council is offended that anyone should criticise it or oppose it, but this is a free country, and frankly the Town Council is a joke, so you're going to have to deal with it.
Now my banging on about what you did in a public forum is a legitimate protest. This Town Council is offended that anyone should criticise it or oppose it, but this is a free country, and frankly the Town Council is a joke, so you're going to have to deal with it.
I think if you have got something to say, you should stop beating around the bush and say what you are mean(!) There's nothing to gain by pu$$y-footing around(!)
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 11 2011, 07:19 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 11 2011, 06:45 PM)
Why do you think he has support?
Why do you think he has not?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2011, 07:31 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 11 2011, 07:19 PM)
Why do you think he has not?
I have read these threads since last year. To save you the bother - most recently we have had
To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.
Not exactly the rousing, chest swelling, bravura speech of a turnip weilding Che Guevara, or a pumpkin astriding Patton is it.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 07:40 PM
And we've had this discussion many times too: No, I don't believe anyone else wants to stand up to the council over this and demand self-management.
Does that mean there wouldn't be enough people willing to do the administration is we did self-manage - not at all. I'm confident that if the Council said tomorrow that they wanted shot of the service self-managed people would come forward. Most allotmenteers wouldn't want to drive it, but the Society survey shows that very many would like to do a bit.
It would only take about half a dozen people to self-manage the six sites. It's the administration that costs most of the money so if that was done voluntary the service would break even without any working parties or anything else changing. Of course working parties are the fun part so I'd hope to see site associations encouraged to organise and take this on in time and keep the revenue to cover it, but it could be phased in over several years. Eventually the site associations would be keeping most of the revenue for reinvestment as they saw fit. It's all in the budget.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2011, 07:47 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 07:40 PM)
And we've had this discussion many times too: No, I don't believe anyone else wants to stand up to the council over this and demand self-management.
Does that mean there wouldn't be enough people willing to do the administration is we did self-manage - not at all. I'm confident that if the Council said tomorrow that they wanted shot of the service self-managed people would come forward. Most allotmenteers wouldn't want to drive it, but the Society survey shows that very many would like to do a bit.
It would only take about half a dozen people to self-manage the six sites. It's the administration that costs most of the money so if that was done voluntary the service would break even without any working parties or anything else changing. Of course working parties are the fun part so I'd hope to see site associations encouraged to organise and take this on in time and keep the revenue to cover it, but it could be phased in over several years. Eventually the site associations would be keeping most of the revenue for reinvestment as they saw fit. It's all in the budget.
Does that mean there wouldn't be enough people willing to do the administration is we did self-manage - not at all. I'm confident that if the Council said tomorrow that they wanted shot of the service self-managed people would come forward. Most allotmenteers wouldn't want to drive it, but the Society survey shows that very many would like to do a bit.
It would only take about half a dozen people to self-manage the six sites. It's the administration that costs most of the money so if that was done voluntary the service would break even without any working parties or anything else changing. Of course working parties are the fun part so I'd hope to see site associations encouraged to organise and take this on in time and keep the revenue to cover it, but it could be phased in over several years. Eventually the site associations would be keeping most of the revenue for reinvestment as they saw fit. It's all in the budget.
Get them together then.
You do seem to contradict your self though.
Still Friday night - beer calls!
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 11 2011, 07:48 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 11 2011, 07:31 PM)
I have read these threads since last year. To save you the bother - most recently we have had
To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.
Not exactly the rousing, chest swelling, bravura speech of a turnip weilding Che Guevara, or a pumpkin astriding Patton is it.
To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.
Not exactly the rousing, chest swelling, bravura speech of a turnip weilding Che Guevara, or a pumpkin astriding Patton is it.
Yes but to quote your good self "but you can't believe everything that is posted on forums can you"
The I said you said is pointless is it not? As a taxpayer I would rather the allotment tenants were not being subsidised by the taxpayer. If self management can trim costs for the allotment tenants and alleviate the taxpayers burden then carry out a proper survey to see if the majority want self management?
End of argument then once and for all?
Posted by: user23 Mar 11 2011, 07:49 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 07:40 PM)
It would only take about half a dozen people to self-manage the six sites. It's the administration that costs most of the money so if that was done voluntary the service would break even without any working parties or anything else changing.
And there's there's the rub. You want to be king of the allotments but your savings only happen if you have people work for you, for free.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 11 2011, 07:56 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2011, 07:49 PM)
And there's there's the rub.
You want to be king of the allotments but your savings only happen if you have people work for you, for free.
You want to be king of the allotments but your savings only happen if you have people work for you, for free.
That's the idea behind Dave's big society is it not? That is why people do their own decorating etc to save £s paying a contractor to do it for you?
Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 11 2011, 08:11 PM
in reply to questions r.e. the running costs of allotments in Newbury, this was obtained from NTC
Thank you for your query re allotment costs. The total cost of providing and servicing the allotments was budgeted in 2010/11 to be around £61,000. This is made up of Direct Costs of £21,680 and Indirect Costs of around £39,000.
Budgeted Direct Costs were:
£620 Rent, Parsons allotment site
£2000 Water
£14000 Maintenance
£2060 Rodent Control
£3000 Contract - unscheduled works
Indirect Costs of around £39,000 are estimated by estimating the percentage of time that each Officer spends on each service and apportioning total budgeted staff costs accordingly. Allotment service related activities executed by those officers include (in no particular order, and probably not exhaustive):
- Responding to queries of varying types (by mail, letter, phone or in person) from allotment tenants and stewards, taking anything from 5 minutes to a day of effort, depending on the query.
- Liaising with the stewards as allocated to each site on all aspects of allotments, including executing stewards meetings, (agendas, meeting co-ordination, minutes and follow-up).
- Organising ad hoc tenants meetings as required (agendas, meeting co-ordination, minutes and follow-up).
- Providing support for the Growing in the Community Working Group (agendas, meeting co-ordination, minutes and follow-up).
- Maintenance of allotment strategy, reflecting our best practice management and aspirations.
- Maintenance of an allotment service plan.
- Management of waiting lists, including explaining process to prospective tenants and then keeping them informed of position on list, through to allocation of plots when available.
- Maintaining the database of existing tenants including contact detail changes as supplied.
- Inspecting sites and raising issues with tenants as appropriate, mainly regarding lack of cultivation on site.
- Managing the formal allotment inspection process by Councillors.
- Supporting the annual awards for best plot / site, including creation of certificates.
- Responding to situations when tenants either inadvertently or deliberately break the rules.
- Considering suggestions for rule changes and executing changes and communications as appropriate
- Keeping team, management and Councillors informed of all aspects of the allotment service, via conversation, e-mail and formal reporting at Council meetings.
- Responding to media queries and production of occasional press releases and/or articles.
- Providing information on NTC allotment processes to other parishes.
- Discussion of appropriate way forward for all sorts of situations as they arise.
- Keeping in touch with allotment best practice through attendance at training, seminars, reading allotment law and monitoring relevant web-sites.
- Provision of support and advice to existing and start-up allotment associations, ensuring understanding of separation of responsibilities between NTC as managers and associations as self help organisations.
- Resolving disputes between tenants (unfortunately one of the larger uses of time).
- Dispatch of annual invoices with appropriate cover notes and Association flyers.
- Collection, recording and chasing of rent.
- Managing the giving up of allotments including the return of keys and deposit refunds, along with rent refunds where requested.
- Providing replacement keys.
- Investigating maintenances issues with locks, fences, water supplies and engaging contractors as necessary to repair – monitoring those repairs and managing order/payment.
- Managing the removal of occasional wasps nests.
- Maintenance of plot markers.
- Direct maintenance where relevant – e.g. ad hoc fence repairs.
- Review of water supplies and extensions required given increased uptake of plots.
- Negotiating with third parties for supply of scalpings to improve the tracks within the allotments.
- Supervising the maintenance contractor provided for allotment sites, including organising associated machinery purchase and maintenance.
- Seeking grants for additional security and improved drainage.
- Management of defined wild life areas.
- Negotiating with allotment neighbours, e.g. where they make illegal access onto allotment sites.
- Marking out new plots where possible and dividing existing larger plots into smaller ones to help reduce waiting lists.
- Liaison with third party contractors re water / power issues, wanting to cross allotment land.
- Reacting to security issues such as allotment shed break-ins – reporting to police and providing guidance on improved security.
- Responding to questions raised to Council and Committees of the Council in relation to allotments.
- Checking water meter readings and ensuring accurate billing of charges.
- Supervision of pest control contract.
- Checking of trees on sites and arranging for ad hoc maintenance of trees, hedges and ditches as appropriate.
- Execution of ad hoc site inspections for health and safety purposes.
- Maintenance of sponsorship bed at West Mills.
- Overseeing provision for the disabled.
- Seeking legal advice to ensure fair and reasonable provision for all tenants.
- Considering and recommending appropriate rent increases.
- Supervision of Community Payback Scheme in ad hoc maintenance work on allotment sites.
- Monitoring the press and web-sites for reporting and comment on Newbury allotment related matters.
- Maintaining site notice boards, web-site, leaflets and other methods of providing allotment information to the community.
- Attending open days and Association meetings on invitation.
- Monitoring notice boards and websites of existing associations.
- Seeking and establishing pros and cons of potential additional allotment sites (6 sites currently under investigation)
- Negotiating rent for the one site that is rented.
- Executing additional charity reporting for the one site that is subject to charitable status.
- Discussion with adjacent Parish Councils on potential for shared provision of allotment services.
- Clearing of excess waste, plus occasional fly-tipped and historic accumulations.
- Managing provision of occasional skips
- Responding to queries from other allotment authorities and sharing best practice
I hope all this information supplied satisfies your query.
Regards
Graham Hunt
Chief Executive Officer
Newbury Town Council
all of these items could be easily managed by a committee of volunteers.
work needed to be done on sites can be arranged through the probation service 'community payback' scheme. ( cost almost nil)
allotment management can be easily done for about £5 - £8 per plot ( inc printing / postage, AGM venue hire etc) once everything needed to do so is in place ( computer / printer, Notice boards)
Posted by: user23 Mar 11 2011, 08:13 PM
Hi bloke on the street. You didn't answer my question about which area of West Berkshire you're from.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2011, 08:26 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 11 2011, 07:48 PM)
Yes but to quote your good self "but you can't believe everything that is posted on forums can you"
The I said you said is pointless is it not? As a taxpayer I would rather the allotment tenants were not being subsidised by the taxpayer. If self management can trim costs for the allotment tenants and alleviate the taxpayers burden then carry out a proper survey to see if the majority want self management?
End of argument then once and for all?
The I said you said is pointless is it not? As a taxpayer I would rather the allotment tenants were not being subsidised by the taxpayer. If self management can trim costs for the allotment tenants and alleviate the taxpayers burden then carry out a proper survey to see if the majority want self management?
End of argument then once and for all?
The quote was from SK.
I agree - the alotment should not be subsidised at all. They should be charged at the going rate.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2011, 08:29 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 11 2011, 08:26 PM)
I agree - the alotment should not be subsidised at all. They should be charged at the going rate.
...or given the option to self manage. Simon Kirkby suggest that Newbury are charged at least the going rate already.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 11 2011, 08:36 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 11 2011, 08:26 PM)
The quote was from SK.
I agree - the alotment should not be subsidised at all. They should be charged at the going rate.
I agree - the alotment should not be subsidised at all. They should be charged at the going rate.
Read post 223 again?
Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 11 2011, 09:09 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2011, 08:13 PM)
Hi bloke on the street. You didn't answer my question about which area of West Berkshire you're from.
why do you think I'm from West Berkshire?
and so what if I'm not?
Posted by: user23 Mar 11 2011, 09:14 PM
QUOTE (the bloke on the street @ Mar 11 2011, 09:09 PM)
why do you think I'm from West Berkshire?
and so what if I'm not?
I just wondered as you're posting in the Newbury News section.and so what if I'm not?
Posted by: the bloke on the street Mar 11 2011, 09:59 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2011, 09:14 PM)
I just wondered as you're posting in the Newbury News section.
I'm posting in the thread on allotments in Newbury. ( I have an interest in self-management of allotments)
Posted by: blackdog Mar 11 2011, 10:04 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2011, 08:13 PM)
Hi bloke on the street. You didn't answer my question about which area of West Berkshire you're from.
Shock horror! Someone not answering a direct question - must be following your example.
Posted by: user23 Mar 11 2011, 10:05 PM
QUOTE (the bloke on the street @ Mar 11 2011, 09:59 PM)
I'm posting in the thread on allotments in Newbury. ( I have an interest in self-management of allotments)
You also seem to have got Newbury Town Council to do quite a bit of work for you from a previous post. I wonder how much this cost us local taxpayers.
You don't live in the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston area, do you?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 11 2011, 10:06 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Mar 11 2011, 10:04 PM)
Shock horror! Someone not answering a direct question - must be following your example.
It's ok, User23 works for West Berks, he's allowed to deflect questions with unrelated questions.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 11 2011, 10:14 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 11 2011, 07:56 PM)
That's the idea behind Dave's big society is it not? That is why people do their own decorating etc to save £s paying a contractor to do it for you?
So much for the big society ideals then? It's ok to slash day centres and stop funding youth centres, but we don't have to have a debate on allotments because we know it's only Simon on his own.
You know what, certain people on this forum make me laugh. They argue about saving money by hitting the vulnerable, but aren't prepared to accept that this could really save the council money if implemented. If it did save £40k, that £40k could go towards keeping a youth centre or day centre open
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 11 2011, 10:16 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2011, 10:05 PM)
You also seem to have got Newbury Town Council to do quite a bit of work for you from a previous post.
I wonder how much this cost us local taxpayers.
You don't live in the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston area, do you?
I wonder how much this cost us local taxpayers.
You don't live in the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston area, do you?
Is there a little red light that flashes when somebody challenges the orthodoxy? "deflect, deflect, deflect"!!! Anyway, we must stop posting anything that challenges the views of User23, he needs to get down the Snooty for his beverages
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 10:25 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 06:58 PM)
The Society's membership survey showed 85% support for self-management. Didn't I mention that already?
yes I remember that survey. Most of the tenents at wash common felt intimadated in filling it out when Simon went round with it. Some said yes to self management becuase they felt that they had to. yes i remember it well
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 10:27 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 07:07 PM)
Yes, I thought that might be your response. Your vendetta is my legitimate complaint. Take the rent increase. It is unenforceable because of consumer protection legislation. You know that, but you chose to impose it anyway because you didn't think anyone would risk eviction for £20. But of course I did because it would be hard to find a more obvious example of an unfair term. And then rather than admit what you did you decide to give me notice to quit out of anger and vindictiveness, and I'll beat that too because the court won't allow you to make a monkey out of the law.
Now my banging on about what you did in a public forum is a legitimate protest. This Town Council is offended that anyone should criticise it or oppose it, but this is a free country, and frankly the Town Council is a joke, so you're going to have to deal with it.
Now my banging on about what you did in a public forum is a legitimate protest. This Town Council is offended that anyone should criticise it or oppose it, but this is a free country, and frankly the Town Council is a joke, so you're going to have to deal with it.
You get very aggressive dont you
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 10:29 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 11 2011, 07:31 PM)
I have read these threads since last year. To save you the bother - most recently we have had
To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.
Not exactly the rousing, chest swelling, bravura speech of a turnip weilding Che Guevara, or a pumpkin astriding Patton is it.
To be completely honest I don't expect there's a single other allotmenteer in Newbury could give a stuff. Almost all of them can easily afford £70 for their allotment and they have no great urge to cut a bit of grass or trim a bit of hedge that doesn't belong to them, and certainly not if the Council is going to do it for them. And if a few trouble makers get evicted, well more fool them for making trouble.
Not exactly the rousing, chest swelling, bravura speech of a turnip weilding Che Guevara, or a pumpkin astriding Patton is it.
I rest my case
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 11 2011, 10:40 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 10:29 PM)
I rest my case
So can you prove that he bullied people into filling out a survey? That is quite a serious allegation, and something that was seemingly left out of the council press release directed at him. Isn't there a cde of conduct to prevent personal attacks on a member of the public from a local authority?
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 10:43 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 11 2011, 10:40 PM)
So can you prove that he bullied people into filling out a survey? That is quite a serious allegation, and something that was seemingly left out of the council press release directed at him. Isn't there a cde of conduct to prevent personal attacks on a member of the public from a local authority?
Richard i am telling you how i felt and others said they felt the same. Why should this be on a council notice???
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2011, 11:03 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 10:25 PM)
yes I remember that survey. Most of the tenents at wash common felt intimadated in filling it out when Simon went round with it. Some said yes to self management becuase they felt that they had to. yes i remember it well
It is a vile, false, and malicious accusation made to discredit the result of the survey and smear my reputation.
Do you have the courage of your convictions to come out from your skulking anonymity and hold yourself accountable for this public attack?
Posted by: panda Mar 11 2011, 11:12 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 11 2011, 11:03 PM)
It is a vile, false, and malicious accusation made to discredit the result of the survey and smear my reputation.
Do you have the courage of your convictions to come out from your skulking anonymity and hold yourself accountable for this public attack?
Do you have the courage of your convictions to come out from your skulking anonymity and hold yourself accountable for this public attack?
But how do we know you are telling the whole truth. Like i say, anyone that doesn't agree with you gets your aggressive behaviour. It's not nice to always attack people who disagree with you
Posted by: user23 Mar 12 2011, 08:31 AM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 11:12 PM)
But how do we know you are telling the whole truth. Like i say, anyone that doesn't agree with you gets your aggressive behaviour. It's not nice to always attack people who disagree with you
Indeed. We've seen Simon get very aggressive and angry with those who don't follow his thinking so this wouldn't be out of character. His attack on David Allen was one example of this.Fortunately for the allotments his one man power grab seems to have little to no support for anyone else.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 12 2011, 08:50 AM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 11 2011, 11:12 PM)
But how do we know you are telling the whole truth. Like i say, anyone that doesn't agree with you gets your aggressive behaviour. It's not nice to always attack people who disagree with you
On the one hand you are saying he is not telling the whole truth, now you are saying "how do we know" he's telling the truth. User, he may well have support, and the only way to establish that is if a proper meeting was held.
The only alternative to a proper debate is to allow this to rumble on, and Simon, Cllr Fenn and NTC will all lose some credability as a result.
Posted by: user23 Mar 12 2011, 09:32 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Mar 12 2011, 08:50 AM)
On the one hand you are saying he is not telling the whole truth, now you are saying "how do we know" he's telling the truth. User, he may well have support, and the only way to establish that is if a proper meeting was held.
The only alternative to a proper debate is to allow this to rumble on, and Simon, Cllr Fenn and NTC will all lose some credability as a result.
Nothing is "rumbling on". Reading what's been posted on here it seems it's just one person with a vendetta against the Town Council making a lot of noise and getting aggressive at times.
The only alternative to a proper debate is to allow this to rumble on, and Simon, Cllr Fenn and NTC will all lose some credability as a result.
Posted by: NorahG Mar 12 2011, 10:30 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 12 2011, 09:32 AM)
Nothing is "rumbling on". Reading what's been posted on here it seems it's just one person with a vendetta against the Town Council making a lot of noise and getting aggressive at times.
Well, when you have all calmed down, a public meeting might be a good idea. I did not realise growing a few vegetables could produce such a response! If Newbury has six allotment sites then to self-manage they will need at least six volunteers (and deputies when they are on holiday/ill etc. So 12 people? Can they not come forward and at least back up this Simon Kirby. And I've read that all allotment holders need to be informed of the change and agree it, but I've also read elsewhere that 80% of holders need to agree a change to self-management so a definite answer is needed to that.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 10:37 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 12 2011, 09:32 AM)
Nothing is "rumbling on". Reading what's been posted on here it seems it's just one person with a vendetta against the Town Council making a lot of noise and getting aggressive at times.
Well that's one side of the story.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 10:40 AM
QUOTE (NorahG @ Mar 12 2011, 10:30 AM)
Well, when you have all calmed down, a public meeting might be a good idea. I did not realise growing a few vegetables could produce such a response! If Newbury has six allotment sites then to self-manage they will need at least six volunteers (and deputies when they are on holiday/ill etc. So 12 people? Can they not come forward and at least back up this Simon Kirby. And I've read that all allotment holders need to be informed of the change and agree it, but I've also read elsewhere that 80% of holders need to agree a change to self-management so a definite answer is needed to that.
So tax-payers don't get a say?
And seemingly with the council desperate to hold on to their 'power' by being reluctant to promote the idea, it looks otherwise like a non-starter.
Posted by: NorahG Mar 12 2011, 11:01 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 12 2011, 10:40 AM)
So tax payers don't get a say?
And seemingly with the council desperate to hold on to their 'power' by being reluctant to promote the idea, it looks otherwise like a non-starter.
And seemingly with the council desperate to hold on to their 'power' by being reluctant to promote the idea, it looks otherwise like a non-starter.
You are a bit defeatist aren't you
I see the circumstances differently to you. I read this piece on the town councils website:ALLOTMENT SELF-MANAGEMENT
The allotment service provided in Newbury is of very high standard. It includes provision of water,
site security, maintenance of shared areas, pest control, parking, and occasional skips. The thought
and care that goes into the allotment service from the stewards, the services team and the
Community Services committee is significant, and is more than by most other providers.
The same individual who has defaulted on rent payment has been conducting a one-person
campaign for Newbury’s allotments to be “self-managed”. There are advantages to selfmanagement 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
I still think a public meeting would clear the air though.
Posted by: user23 Mar 12 2011, 11:16 AM
A public meeting between who and who?
Andy, remember, if this fails the Town Council have a legal duty to provide allotments, so it'll be us taxpayers bailing out them out if Simon decides to spend all the funds on a new shed to enter in a contest (as has been mentioned before) and not pay the utility bills, for example.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 11:26 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 12 2011, 11:16 AM)
A public meeting between who and who?
Andy, remember, if this fails the Town Council have a legal duty to provide allotments, so it'll be us taxpayers bailing out them out if Simon decides to spend all the funds on a new shed to enter in a contest (as has been mentioned before) and not pay the utility bills, for example.
Andy, remember, if this fails the Town Council have a legal duty to provide allotments, so it'll be us taxpayers bailing out them out if Simon decides to spend all the funds on a new shed to enter in a contest (as has been mentioned before) and not pay the utility bills, for example.
We already 'bail them out', so what would be different? As for your example, Simon couldn't unilaterally go and buy a shed (or whatever), but if he did, he'd soon be up before the beak.
Posted by: user23 Mar 12 2011, 11:52 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 12 2011, 11:26 AM)
We already 'bail them out', so what would be different? As for your example, Simon couldn't unilaterally go and buy a shed (or whatever), but if he did, he'd soon be up before the beak.
I could cost us a lot more if they were mismanaged. As a previous poster points out, are there 12 people in Newbury qualified and willing to do it?
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 12:19 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 12 2011, 11:52 AM)
I could cost us a lot more if they were mismanaged.
As a previous poster points out, are there 12 people in Newbury qualified and willing to do it?
As a previous poster points out, are there 12 people in Newbury qualified and willing to do it?
Only one way to find out.....
That is if NTC really do want to find out of course?
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 12:38 PM
QUOTE (NorahG @ Mar 12 2011, 10:30 AM)
Well, when you have all calmed down, a public meeting might be a good idea. I did not realise growing a few vegetables could produce such a response! If Newbury has six allotment sites then to self-manage they will need at least six volunteers (and deputies when they are on holiday/ill etc. So 12 people? Can they not come forward and at least back up this Simon Kirby. And I've read that all allotment holders need to be informed of the change and agree it, but I've also read elsewhere that 80% of holders need to agree a change to self-management so a definite answer is needed to that.
The town Council hold regular meetings with the stewards of each site. They also hold meeting with the tenents of each site who are all invited. Noone i know has indicated that they want self managment apart from Simon Kirby. So there are plenty of oppertunities for tenents to talk about it
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 12:45 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 12:38 PM)
The town Council hold regular meetings with the stewards of each site. They also hold meeting with the tenents of each site who are all invited. Noone i know has indicated that they want self managment apart from Simon Kirby. So there are plenty of oppertunities for tenents to talk about it
But that doesn't work if some of the Stewards are also NTC Councillors as suggested does it? If they are not interested in self management they are no going to be posing the question are they?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 12:47 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 12 2011, 11:52 AM)
I could cost us a lot more if they were mismanaged.
It might, but bank the savings for a couple of years to find out, and then we would have a kitty for it. It won't be a problem if it doesn't cost more to self manage.
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 12 2011, 11:52 AM)
As a previous poster points out, are there 12 people in Newbury qualified and willing to do it?
If they are offered free plots, or some other incentive, I am certain there would be. We could put a sunset clause on this where it is permitted for, say, 4 years, and then re-appraise the situation.
I believe it is up to the council to facilitate allotments, not ensure their quality as such.
It seems to me that this is more a clash of the councillor Fenn and Simon Kirkby than anything else. I really don't like the idea of a councillor being an allotment warden. This is bound to create the situation we have now.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 12:48 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2011, 10:05 PM)
You also seem to have got Newbury Town Council to do quite a bit of work for you from a previous post.
I wonder how much this cost us local taxpayers.
You don't live in the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston area, do you?
I wonder how much this cost us local taxpayers.
You don't live in the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston area, do you?
Information he is entitled to? Oh wait a minute Out local authorities like to keep information to themselves...
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 12:50 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 12 2011, 12:45 PM)
But that doesn't work if some of the Stewards are also NTC Councillors as suggested does it? If they are not interested in self management they are no going to be posing the question are they?
There is one steward who is also a Councillor. She was a steward before she became a Councillor. The only reason she became a Councillor was that she thought she could give more help and support. so one out of six stewards are Councillors. One out of 500 allotment tenents is a Councillor
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 12:53 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 12 2011, 11:16 AM)
A public meeting between who and who?
Andy, remember, if this fails the Town Council have a legal duty to provide allotments, so it'll be us taxpayers bailing out them out if Simon decides to spend all the funds on a new shed to enter in a contest (as has been mentioned before) and not pay the utility bills, for example.
Andy, remember, if this fails the Town Council have a legal duty to provide allotments, so it'll be us taxpayers bailing out them out if Simon decides to spend all the funds on a new shed to enter in a contest (as has been mentioned before) and not pay the utility bills, for example.
A simple question popped in the post? Would you like to self manage your allotment and alleviate the taxpayers from having to make a subsidy towards your hobby and cut the annual cost of your plot?
That should do it? If we get a positive response then go for a full meeting of all tenants?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 12:55 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 12:50 PM)
There is one steward who is also a Councillor. She was a steward before she became a Councillor. The only reason she became a Councillor was that she thought she could give more help and support. so one out of six stewards are Councillors. One out of 500 allotment tenents is a Councillor
This does give one person a lot of power and I think that is unhealthy. I personally don't think it is ethical to be a steward and a councillor in this manner. How does one become a steward?
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 01:06 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 12 2011, 11:16 AM)
A public meeting between who and who?
Andy, remember, if this fails the Town Council have a legal duty to provide allotments, so it'll be us taxpayers bailing out them out if Simon decides to spend all the funds on a new shed to enter in a contest (as has been mentioned before) and not pay the utility bills, for example.
Andy, remember, if this fails the Town Council have a legal duty to provide allotments, so it'll be us taxpayers bailing out them out if Simon decides to spend all the funds on a new shed to enter in a contest (as has been mentioned before) and not pay the utility bills, for example.
Is there enough room for the proposed
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 01:10 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 12 2011, 12:55 PM)
This does give one person a lot of power and I think that is unhealthy. I personally don't think it is ethical to be a steward and a councillor in this manner. How does one become a steward?
How do you become a steward??? not sure. but there are 500 allotment tenents and anyone can ask quetions at the tenents meetings or they can ask through the steward, remember there are 5 other stewards so they could ask the question. As far as i know noone has asked about self managment. but the oppertunity has always been there
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 01:10 PM)
As far as i know noone has asked about self managment. but the oppertunity has always been there
I don't see this a case of what the allotmenteers want, more what the council should promote. I think it should be incumbent on the council to persuade allotmenteers to self manage. The same goes with any other service where it is practical to do so.
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 01:31 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 12 2011, 01:26 PM)
I don't see this a case of what the allotmenteers want, more what the council should promote. I think it should be incumbent on the council to persuade allotmenteers to self manage. The same goes with any other service where it is practical to do so.
The thing is we dont know if it is practical
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 01:37 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 01:31 PM)
The thing is we dont know if it is practical
Nothing is known until it is tried. It shouldn't be a reason not to try. For there to be a chance of it working, it would have to be done with the endorsement and enthusiasm of the council. I don't believe the enthusiasm, and therefore the endorsement, is there.
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 01:44 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 12 2011, 01:37 PM)
Nothing is known until it is tried. It shouldn't be a reason not to try. For there to be a chance of it working, it would have to be done with the endorsement and enthusiasm of the council. I don't believe the enthusiasm, and therefore the endorsement, is there.
I think the tenents should be asked. The other thing is if it does go self managed and fails, I bet people will blame it all on the council
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 01:46 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 01:44 PM)
I think the tenents should be asked. The other thing is if it does go self managed and fails, I bet people will blame it all on the council
Seriously, what can go wrong? The tenants fail to keep the plots, then take them back over. As for blaming the council, no-one can blame the council for off-loading costs if it can maintain the level of service. The Con/Dem policy is self management and help, and this is an area where it could work. Allotmenteering is not a life or death service, as it were.
Fear of blame falling upon the council is a poor excuse not to do something, don't you?
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 01:57 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 01:44 PM)
I think the tenents should be asked. The other thing is if it does go self managed and fails, I bet people will blame it all on the council
Worth a try? They may just improve on their usual standard? They have not got much right lately have they?
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 01:59 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 12 2011, 01:46 PM)
Seriously, what can go wrong? The tenants fail to keep the plots, then take them back over. As for blaming the council, no-one can blame the council for off-loading costs if it can maintain the level of service. The Con/Dem policy is self management and help, and this is an area where it could work. Allotmenteering is not a life or death service, as it were.
Fear of blame falling upon the council is a poor excuse not to do something, don't you?
Fear of blame falling upon the council is a poor excuse not to do something, don't you?
I agree with you lets look at it. I think we disagree on whether the tenents should have there say or not???
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 02:03 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 01:59 PM)
I agree with you lets look at it. I think we disagree on whether the tenents should have there say or not???
Of course they should have a say, but I think it is something the council should be actively promoting. Should the council promote it, it has to be done with enthusiasm, as it will otherwise be a waste of time.
I think at this stage, it is the council that 'stand in the way' of self management.
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 02:10 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 12 2011, 02:03 PM)
Of course they should have a say, but I think it is something the council should be actively promoting. Should the council promote it, it has to be done with enthusiasm, as it will otherwise be a waste of time.
I think at this stage, it is the council that 'stand in the way' of self management.
I think at this stage, it is the council that 'stand in the way' of self management.
I'm not sure that they are. Andy it seems to me that you are one of the sensible ones on here. I'm beggining to like you
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2011, 02:46 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 02:10 PM)
I'm not sure that they are.
OK, you are right, a successful operation would involve co-operation from both sides.
The one thing we haven't considered however, is who is going to be made redundant through this.
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 02:55 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 12 2011, 02:46 PM)
OK, you are right, a successful operation would involve co-operation from both sides.
The one thing we haven't considered however, is who is going to be made redundant through this.
The one thing we haven't considered however, is who is going to be made redundant through this.
I'm not sure anyone will be made redundant unless you have more thoughts on this
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 02:55 PM)
I'm not sure anyone will be made redundant unless you have more thoughts on this
if self management comes into being NTC will have hardly anything left to do will they......
Ergo they won't require such a large workforce will they? Redundancy?
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 03:18 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 12 2011, 03:09 PM)
if self management comes into being NTC will have hardly anything left to do will they......
Ergo they won't require such a large workforce will they? Redundancy?
Ergo they won't require such a large workforce will they? Redundancy?
do you honestly believe that. You think NTC do allotments and nothing else
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 03:24 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 03:18 PM)
do you honestly believe that. You think NTC do allotments and nothing else
No not a lot else! Certainly won't require the same amount of workers surely if the majority of their work is no longer there for them? Maybe worth looking at to see if a NTC is needed? They only seem to do what WBC tell them anyway so why double up on salaries?
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 03:30 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 12 2011, 03:24 PM)
No not a lot else! Certainly won't require the same amount of workers surely if the majority of their work is no longer there for them? Maybe worth looking at to see if a NTC is needed? They only seem to do what WBC tell them anyway so why double up on salaries?
So you really believe the allotments is the majority of work NTC do and that and they only do what WBC tell them to do???
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 04:24 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 03:30 PM)
So you really believe the allotments is the majority of work NTC do and that and they only do what WBC tell them to do???
Your first name is not Polly is it? You keep repeating what I have just posted?
The answer for you in layman's language? -
Yes
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 12 2011, 04:24 PM)
Your first name is not Polly is it? You keep repeating what I have just posted?
The answer for you in layman's language? -
Yes
The answer for you in layman's language? -
Yes
so who deals with the markets, cemeteries, victoria park, other parks, open spaces, planning consultation, town hall, footway lighting, rememberance day, xmas lights,mayor,
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 06:56 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 06:45 PM)
so who deals with the markets, cemeteries, victoria park, other parks, open spaces, planning consultation, town hall, footway lighting, rememberance day, xmas lights,mayor,
Now you won't like me if you get me started on that subject? Complete waste of taxpayers money!
Market appears to be a closed shop? Cemeteries uses far too much petrol according to another thread? All the grass cutting is done by subcontractor so I am led to believe so not much involved with that apart from ensuring the gates are open and a contractor has dug the grave? Not going to be too much of Victoria thread left soon is there? As for planning consultation I believe that consists of asking the developer "just what part of Newbury would you like to be put at your disposal" Apart form a small amount of administrative work which could be completed part time that's it?
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 07:33 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 12 2011, 06:56 PM)
Now you won't like me if you get me started on that subject? Complete waste of taxpayers money!
Market appears to be a closed shop? Cemeteries uses far too much petrol according to another thread? All the grass cutting is done by subcontractor so I am led to believe so not much involved with that apart from ensuring the gates are open and a contractor has dug the grave? Not going to be too much of Victoria thread left soon is there? As for planning consultation I believe that consists of asking the developer "just what part of Newbury would you like to be put at your disposal" Apart form a small amount of administrative work which could be completed part time that's it?
Market appears to be a closed shop? Cemeteries uses far too much petrol according to another thread? All the grass cutting is done by subcontractor so I am led to believe so not much involved with that apart from ensuring the gates are open and a contractor has dug the grave? Not going to be too much of Victoria thread left soon is there? As for planning consultation I believe that consists of asking the developer "just what part of Newbury would you like to be put at your disposal" Apart form a small amount of administrative work which could be completed part time that's it?
OK i do understand your lack of knowledge on these things. maybe you havn't lived in Newbury that long or maybe you just dont understand. Anyway never mind.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 08:05 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 07:33 PM)
OK i do understand your lack of knowledge on these things. maybe you havn't lived in Newbury that long or maybe you just dont understand. Anyway never mind.
I bet I have lived in Newbury far more years than you? I know exactly how the council works and how much taxpayers money is wasted by the local mafia? That is how I know the council would be dead against self management for the allotments? Jobs for the old boys?
Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 08:12 PM
Hi Andy, i thought we were getting somewhere with this, then you get comments like cognosco who really believes that the allotments are the majority of things the NTC do. It's the guys like that on here that scare me. It's just unbelievable
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 08:27 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 08:12 PM)
Hi Andy, i thought we were getting somewhere with this, then you get comments like cognosco who really believes that the allotments are the majority of things the NTC do. It's the guys like that on here that scare me. It's just unbelievable
So are we going to get some movement on the question of offering allotment tenants the right to self manage or not? Being a council person your thoughts would be useful?
Or does job protection come first? Posted by: panda Mar 12 2011, 08:30 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 12 2011, 08:27 PM)
So are we going to get some movement on the question of offering allotment tenants the right to self manage or not? Being a council person your thoughts would be useful? Or does job protection come first?
Or does job protection come first? what are you on about
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2011, 08:41 PM
QUOTE (panda @ Mar 12 2011, 08:30 PM)
what are you on about
You are really hard work are you not? I can see why Simon was getting angry with the council?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 12 2011, 10:12 PM
I thought Cllr Fenn would support Self Management in the interests of the big society? She is a Conservative member afterall?
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)