NTC consider allotment rent increase enforcement Options

[Iommi]

Just out of interest, may I ask how much it is you pay for your allotment, to justify such contempt for the council ?

While you might see it like that, if what Simon Kirby says is true, the council have been as, if not more contemptuous. This is more than just cost; it is one of principle. People should stand-up for what they believe to be right. One day it could be you that might suffer from an overbearing council.

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps NTC should cut all other services and just concentrate on allotments as SK wants. No cemeteries would be needed as burials could take place on allotments, children could play between the rows of cabbages instead of in playgrounds ...

I gave you a very full answer and nowhere do I suggest any service cuts whatsoever. I suggest that self-management will improve the allotment service whilst saving £100k. No other services are affected by this. My primary interest is the quality of the allotment service and I propose self-management because it improves the service. That it saves £100k of tax-payer's money is an added bonus and helps me make the case for self-management where people are not so familiar with the allotment movement.

In this thread I make specific money-saving suggestions because public money is tight. It's insightful to see how NTC could save 33% on the precept, but doubly so because again none of the Council services are cut, they're just delivered in partnership with the community.

... and the Mayor could share SK's shed. The Town Hall could be sold off and turned into bedsits for more "affordable housing".

But now you're confusing services with overheads. All of the Council services could be operated from an office on New Greenham Park without any need for a mayor. Actually there's a case to be made that the cultural authority engendered by the mayor and town hall are part of the Council's problem and that were they to see themselves more as services providers rather than feudal overlords they might serve the town better. But whatever, if money's tight and it's a choice between all that pomp and say a day care centre I know what I'd want my money spent on.

Just out of interest, may I ask how much it is you pay for your allotment, to justify such contempt for the council ?

You miss the point. My contempt for the Council doesn't stem from the cost of my allotment, but from their arrogance. This thread specifically is about the unenforceability of the rent increase. In short because of some consumer protection legislation the Council have to give 12 months notice of any rent increase. The Council's position is that people should just shut up and do as they're told. I think that attitude stinks and I feel strongly enough about it to risk my allotment calling the Council's bluff.

I am also contemptuous of how the Council have suppressed discussion of self-management to protect their self-interest. The Council have accused me of spreading misinformation about allotment rents, but in this thread I've shown how Cllr Arthur Johnson and the Services Manager have apparently mislead the West Mills tenants' meeting and Newbury allotmenteers generally. Cllr Johnson said in effect that Newbury's allotment rent is only average whereas it is in fact about twice the going rate, and the Services Manager wrongly implied that self-management produced rents of well over ten times the current rate and that's utter nonsense.

I'm also contemptuous of how the Council has victimised me for starting a site association and attempting to empower allotmenteers. In this thread I have given as an example how Cllr Marion Fenn made what I believe to be false and malicious accusations against me at a meeting of the full council. The Council later took up Cllr Fenn's proposal to label me as a vexatious complainant to stop me raising the question of self-management and the rent increase at council meetings, and they have also suspended my right to free expression by preventing me raising awareness of these issues on the society notice board. Incidentally, I mailed Cllr Fenn to give her the opportunity to post here those "crude and offensive" emails she supposes me to have sent, but she appears to have been unable to do that. Just to be fair, I have a copy of every e-mail I've sent over the last three years so if anyone want to trawl through them and expose any that are "crude and offensive" then I'd welcome it.

Anywho, you think this is about the money? My rent is £47.10, and the Council put it up to £69.40, and I withheld £22.30. I wouldn't want to deprive the allotment service or over-burden the tax-payer just because of the Council's arrogance, so here's an idea: If the Council make a genuine commitment to self-management within the next 12 months I'll make a £250 donation to improve site facilities - and if Cllr Fenn can't substantiate her personal accusation against me then I'll accept a similar contribution towards site facilities from her by way of apology.

[Cognosco]

I gave you a very full answer and nowhere do I suggest any service cuts whatsoever. I suggest that self-management will improve the allotment service whilst saving £100k. No other services are affected by this. My primary interest is the quality of the allotment service and I propose self-management because it improves the service. That it saves £100k of tax-payer's money is an added bonus and helps me make the case for self-management where people are not so familiar with the allotment movement.

In this thread I make specific money-saving suggestions because public money is tight. It's insightful to see how NTC could save 33% on the precept, but doubly so because again none of the Council services are cut, they're just delivered in partnership with the community.


But now you're confusing services with overheads. All of the Council services could be operated from an office on New Greenham Park without any need for a mayor. Actually there's a case to be made that the cultural authority engendered by the mayor and town hall are part of the Council's problem and that were they to see themselves more as services providers rather than feudal overlords they might serve the town better. But whatever, if money's tight and it's a choice between all that pomp and say a day care centre I know what I'd want my money spent on.


You miss the point. My contempt for the Council doesn't stem from the cost of my allotment, but from their arrogance. This thread specifically is about the unenforceability of the rent increase. In short because of some consumer protection legislation the Council have to give 12 months notice of any rent increase. The Council's position is that people should just shut up and do as they're told. I think that attitude stinks and I feel strongly enough about it to risk my allotment calling the Council's bluff.

I am also contemptuous of how the Council have suppressed discussion of self-management to protect their self-interest. The Council have accused me of spreading misinformation about allotment rents, but in this thread I've shown how Cllr Arthur Johnson and the Services Manager have apparently mislead the West Mills tenants' meeting and Newbury allotmenteers generally. Cllr Johnson said in effect that Newbury's allotment rent is only average whereas it is in fact about twice the going rate, and the Services Manager wrongly implied that self-management produced rents of well over ten times the current rate and that's utter nonsense.

I'm also contemptuous of how the Council has victimised me for starting a site association and attempting to empower allotmenteers. In this thread I have given as an example how Cllr Marion Fenn made what I believe to be false and malicious accusations against me at a meeting of the full council. The Council later took up Cllr Fenn's proposal to label me as a vexatious complainant to stop me raising the question of self-management and the rent increase at council meetings, and they have also suspended my right to free expression by preventing me raising awareness of these issues on the society notice board. Incidentally, I mailed Cllr Fenn to give her the opportunity to post here those "crude and offensive" emails she supposes me to have sent, but she appears to have been unable to do that. Just to be fair, I have a copy of every e-mail I've sent over the last three years so if anyone want to trawl through them and expose any that are "crude and offensive" then I'd welcome it.

Anywho, you think this is about the money? My rent is £47.10, and the Council put it up to £69.40, and I withheld £22.30. I wouldn't want to deprive the allotment service or over-burden the tax-payer just because of the Council's arrogance, so here's an idea: If the Council make a genuine commitment to self-management within the next 12 months I'll make a £250 donation to improve site facilities - and if Cllr Fenn can't substantiate her personal accusation against me then I'll accept a similar contribution towards site facilities from her by way of apology.

All seems straight forward and fair to me. Come on Cllr Fenn lets see the evidence as you have publicly accused Simon lets see the evidence as suggested?

[user23]

My rent is £47.10, and the Council put it up to £69.40, and I withheld £22.30.

Hang on, that's £70 to rent a bit of land in Newbury for a whole year? £70?

That's dirt cheap, if you pardon the pun.

[Strafin]

But that isn't the point. If you're landlord increased your rent by 50% with no notice or reasoning you wouldn't stand for it would for you?

[Iommi]

Hang on, that's £70 to rent a bit of land in Newbury for a whole year? £70?That's dirt cheap, if you pardon the pun.

It is, but that ain't his issue.

[user23]

It is, but that ain't his issue.

But that's the real issue here. It's £70 to rent a bit of land in Newbury for a whole year.

[Iommi]

But that's the real issue here. It's £70 to rent a bit of land in Newbury for a whole year.

You know that is not SK's the substantive problem with the council. He has gone to great lengths to explain his situation. He has explained it well in my view.

[user23]

You know that is not SK's the substantive problem with the council. He has gone to great lengths to explain his situation. He has explained it well in my view.

But what it all boils down to is he's moaning about paying £70 a year to rent a plot of land in Newbury.

[Iommi]

But what it all boils down to is he's moaning about paying £70 a year to rent a plot of land in Newbury.

It is clear from the numerous posts that this is not true, but is merely your spin to try and discredit Simon Kirby.

[user23]

It is clear from the numerous posts that this is not true, but is merely your spin to try and discredit Simon Kirby.

No, this is my opinion, that £70 is cheap to rent a plot of land in Newbury.

Disagree if you like but don't say I'm trying to discredit someone by expressing it.

[Iommi]

No, this is my opinion, that £70 is cheap to rent a plot of land in Newbury. Disagree if you like but don't say I'm trying to discredit someone by expressing it.

That bit is OK, to a degree (it is cheap as a piece of land goes, but it seems it is not cheap as allotments go), but I am challenging your use of the 'it boils down to' bit; it doesn't (in my view). His complaint boils down to the behaviour of the council.

[On the edge]

Sorry folks but £70 per annum for a 'bit of land' and that's just what it is does seem a bit expensive to me. Particularly as most of this land is in places where no one would (should) be permitted to develop. OK, I'd pay that willingly to be able to park my car; so long as it was near my office. Would our planning people like that?

[dannyboy]

£70.00 a year is cheap. try renting a comparable town centre plot.

There is no saving of taxpayers money. NTC have to put something in the accounts under the heading 'Allotments' because if they didn't they'd lose that funding.

For all we know the other allotmenteers could have asked NTC to get rid of SK!

[Simon Kirby]

Hang on, that's £70 to rent a bit of land in Newbury for a whole year? £70?

That's dirt cheap, if you pardon the pun.

This protest is specifically about the Council's willingness to ignore consumer protection legislation and use their weight to intimidate the town's allotmenteers into paying up regardless. I think that's morally wrong, but I'm not sure I'd have opposed the Council were it not for a catalogue of previous abuse, and when the Local Government Ombudsman gets through with their investigation of the WBC Standards Board I'll be seeking redress for every little bit of it. Motivation is complex and I don't propose to over-analyse mine, so if you want to understand my motivation to be my indignation at the cost of my allotment then fine, unless of course you think that excuses what I'm complaining about?

So anywho, £70 cheap? Compared to what?

It's not cheap for an allotment. Here's some analysis from the start of the year of the cost of local sites, and there's Newbury at the top. It's a random sample so you'll find more expensive sites if you look hard, but you'll find cheaper sites too. It's statistically fair to say Newbury is around twice the likely average (and if you're into such things I used the central limit theorem to estimate the likely population mean to be in th £3 - £4 range with a confidence of 90%).


It's not cheap for agricultural land either which rents for around £100 per acre - that's effectively £8.33 for my 10 pole plot. Not exactly comparable, but not an unreasonable comparison either because essentially an allotment is somewhere to grow fruit and veg - it's a fundamental rule and condition of the allotments act.

If you want to compare the cost to other leisure activities then of course, £70 is cheap for a golf club membership, and it's cheap for a Gym membership, but it's £70 more expensive than running or cycling or walking the dog in the country, so it's a bit meaningless making those comparisons.

Another way of looking at it is how much does it need to cost? I've shown already that commercial out-sourced allotment site management is available from £7 per plot, and when you compare that to Newbury Town Council's costs of administration of £185 then you start to see where the problem lies. I know of self-managed sites that are self-financing at around £20 for a twn pole plot, but the budget I've prepared for self-management in Newbury works out around £50 for a ten pole plot. At this rate the sites generate some revenue for capital investment so I'd argue that this is a fair rent.

So no, £70 is not cheap for an allotment, it's about twice the going rate, and it's £20 more than it needs to be.

[dannyboy]

But NTC use the allotments to generate income.

[Simon Kirby]

£70.00 a year is cheap. try renting a comparable town centre plot.

Agreed. An allotment is cheaper to rent than a retail unit in Parkway.

There is no saving of taxpayers money. NTC have to put something in the accounts under the heading 'Allotments' because if they didn't they'd lose that funding.

Erm, OK. Are you accusing NTC of illegal accounting? That's a serious allegation, I hope you can substantiate it.

For all we know the other allotmenteers could have asked NTC to get rid of SK!

From what I understand there has been something of a campaign against me. I can't answer for the motivation of the organiser.

[Simon Kirby]

But NTC use the allotments to generate income.

Didn't I answer this already?

[dannyboy]

Agreed. An allotment is cheaper to rent than a retail unit in Parkway.


Erm, OK. Are you accusing NTC of illegal accounting? That's a serious allegation, I hope you can substantiate it.


From what I understand there has been something of a campaign against me. I can't answer for the motivation of the organiser.

Illegal accounting? Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that there are no savings.

Comparring a retail unit to an allotment is supurious. You'd be unable to rent a comparable plot of land in Newbury twon centre for £70.00pa.

[dannyboy]

Didn't I answer this already?

You did, but then you claim that you could save me & the other taxpapyers of Newbury £100k.
Either the allotments are making a profit, or they are a drain on council cash.