Plot Sizes

[Sheneval]

Hi Sparrow,

Difficult one this - we have at least 5 plots that would come under the terms you describe and last year I worked a half a half plot so that the girl could keep it going but she has given it up this year and as I got my own plot just after I agreed to help her I would have to tell her I was n/a to help this year.

Last year one full plot holder worked his daughter's half plot because she did not want to give it up.
One half plot holder has been ill so this year is using someone else to fill in for him meantime as he hopes to recover; another half plot holder works his son's half plot and has been doing so for some time - one will work half his sister's half plot this year because she does not want to give it up and another just going to Uni this year has asked his uncle to look after it for him.

Your views on these issues would be useful as this will be discussed at the committee in the near future.

Our present waiting list should be eliminated this year provided all accept the available plots but I expect this won't happen as previously a large number on the list seemed to think they could walk on to a nice little garden almost ready for planting.

If we throw the 5 plot holders previously mentioned off the site their plots will probably lie unattended or if they are given to those on the waiting list who want better plots then the overgrown ones will remain unattended and unused.

As I say I welcome your views - if you can come up with a solution you should be renamed Solomon

[Hazel at the Hill]

The recurring problem over the decades of allotment provision due to fluctuating demand.

Shen, you give a good example - people using proxies might be 'wrong', but in the absence of a waiting list, if the proxies are chucked off, the plots will be left to get overgrown, which is in no-ones interest. If there is a waiting list (or there becomes a waiting list), then the proxies will be moved aside in the interests of new plotholders. These proxies will then grumble that they have been allowed to use the allotments in this way for possibly years, and that the goalposts have moved - trouble arises when common practice stops being so as circumstances change.

The situation in the 70's and 80's was such that existing plotholders were encouraged to take extra plots just to get them used and in production as allotments weren't very popular and the alternative was allotment sites being closed or sold off. When allotments became popular again, these plotters were under pressure to give up their hard worked (multiple) plots for the sake of an unknown new plotter who waltzed onto a well maintained plot to maybe - or maybe not - make good use of it.

I can see why those plotters who have been in that situation feel aggrieved, but I also understand that if I was on a waiting list then I might not see those with multiple plots (or full plots) shouldn't share so that everyone can have a bit of growing space.

There's no easy answer to what 'should' and 'shouldn't' be provided in terms of allotments - we've had discussions on here as to whether those with gardens should be allowed to take a plot in areas where there are long waiting lists for example; or whether councils should provide more land when that money might be otherwise spent on other council services (libraries, leisure centres etc)

I suggest that you lobby for the same compromise as we have at the Hill - we have a number of full, half and even quarter plots - new plotters are only allowed small plots to start with, but we are retaining full plots. I'll did out the current mix from the AGM if you'd find it helpful.

[alldigging]

proxies...

Your views on these issues would be useful as this will be discussed at the committee in the near future.

If you have a waiting list then people who do not tend their plot themselves should be kicked off.

If people gave them up easily then waiting lists would move more quickly. And then when people wanted a plot themselves they'd be nearer the top of the list.

Should a set number of visits a year be required by the plot holder? Set number of hours? Starts to all sound a bit facist when you think about that side of it - but basically if you're not doing your own plot (and 6 months not being on site should be enough to get you kicked off) then you shouldn't have a plot.

I know people have reasons for not being able to get there, but deciding when a reason is valid is also hard.

Allotments need regular work. You need to plant and harvest and enjoy it. You do that by being on it regularly.

[sparrow100]

Hi Sheneval

I'm definitely not a Solomon! I think my views are the minority and will be unpopular, but I can't leave them unvoiced. I completely support proxies for relatively 'short' periods - eg 1 or 2 seasons, because people have babies, become ill, have other family/work issues etc.

In my opinion there should be some form of regular review by the Committee for these arrangements and this shouldn't go on for years just because the existing tenant doesn't want to or can't work their plot anymore, but doesn't want to give it up. Which is what I think needs addressing.

I don't want to imply criticism of my Committee either. They have done, and continue to do, a HUGE amount of work to get the site into good order and better cultivation since going self-managed. This is one aspect that has just been less important than others. And perhaps it still is in the consensus view. In which case I will shut up till it's more appropriate.

In terms of your cases my view would be:
a) depends on why the daughter couldn't work the plot & when she thought she could work it from - I don't think a year out with the plot being worked is a big deal
b) definitely support the proxy
c) depends on why the son can't work it - if it's been for some time and there's no likely return date probably ask him to give it up
d) probably ask them to give it up
e) definitely ask them to give it up

Do bear in mind I am fairly militant! Where I live is very built up. Most people live in flats or houses with small gardens. We have a 5ish year waiting list, and, to my knowledge, we don't recruit actively to the waiting list. There are lots of local events, schools and community organisations we could talk to, but I don't think that we do, because the Committee are all volunteers and the work till now has been enough of a time commitment. The waiting list would be a proper beast if we did as there are few sites on our side of town.

[iGrow]

On the site I am on the plots were originally a quarter of an acre and some of the long standing tenants continue to "farm" these. As plots have been vacated (for whatever reasons) the plots were split in half or quarters. When I was originally looking for a plot I decided that one of these smaller plots would be as much as I could cope with and having got the plot in shape (two seasons) the opportunity arose to take on an adjacent plot which is now also in fair shape. Had I taken on the area I now use from the outset I think ì would have found it more of a chore and possibly have given up. There are plenty of people on my site that have taken on more than they should have to the detriment of others what with the weeds etc that they leave to seed...

[Sheneval]

Hazel,

As ever your views represent common sense - I would welcome any info you have as I think the mix of plot sizes is the right answer and we have to be more stringent with those who take on plots without taking on the responsibility of keeping them in order - in a way it is our own fault because some of these people arrive on site without a clue about the work involved or how to split it into bits so it does not become overwhelming - we will change this after the AGM when the current Chair, Vice chair, Secretary and Treasurer, who have been in charge since the beginning stand down. They welcome the smaller plots because they make far more money from these plus the membership fees come from a far larger number but have no interest in giving incomers any info. other than quoting 'Thou shalt not' do this, that or whatever.

[Sheneval]

On the site I am on the plots were originally a quarter of an acre and some of the long standing tenants continue to be"farm" these. As plots have been vacated (for whatever reasons) the plots were split in half or quarters. When I was originally looking for a plot I decided that one of these smaller plots would be as much as I could cope with and having got the plot in shape (two seasons) the opportunity arose to take on an adjacent plot which is now also in fair shape. Had I taken on the area I now use from the outset I think ì would have found it more ofa chore and possibly have given up. There are plenty of people on my site that have taken on more than they should have to the detriment of the other what with the weeds etc that they leave to seed...

IGrow - As you do not quote the size of your plots it is difficult to judge how it compares to our own

[Sheneval]

Hi Sheneval

I'm definitely not a Solomon! I think my views are the minority and will be unpopular, but I can't leave them unvoiced. I completely support proxies for relatively 'short' periods - eg 1 or 2 seasons, because people have babies, become ill, have other family/work issues etc.

In my opinion there should be some form of regular review by the Committee for these arrangements and this shouldn't go on for years just because the existing tenant doesn't want to or can't work their plot anymore, but doesn't want to give it up. Which is what I think needs addressing.
In terms of your cases my view would be:
a) depends on why the daughter couldn't work the plot & when she thought she could work it from - I don't think a year out with the plot being worked is a big deal
b) definitely support the proxy
c) depends on why the son can't work it - if it's been for some time and there's no likely return date probably ask him to give it up
d) probably ask them to give it up
e) definitely ask them to give it up
We have a 5ish year waiting list, and, to my knowledge, we don't recruit actively to the waiting list. There are lots of local events, schools and community organisations we could talk to, but I don't think that we do, because the Committee are all volunteers and the work till now has been enough of a time commitment. The waiting list would be a proper beast if we did as there are few sites on our side of town.

There's quite a bit of sense in what you say but I won't quote you on how you would act as I'm afraid the sister and the young guy, (and he is a big guy), would be after your blood - she has been on the site from the beginning and just can't cope with a half plot - personally I would ask her to agree to share her plot thus creating 2 quarter plots with the option that when one person gives up the other gets the option to revert back to a half plot if they so wish.

A 5 year waiting list is ridiculous - rather than blaming fellow plot holders I think I would be campaigning for the Council to make more plots available to meet their obligations under the legislation.

[alldigging]

A 5 year waiting list is ridiculous - rather than blaming fellow plot holders I think I would be campaigning for the Council to make more plots available to meet their obligations under the legislation.

There should be pressure put on the council to find space/money for new extra plots in areas of high demand.
But that doesn't mean it's ok for people to never go to their allotment plot.

[Sheneval]

alldigging - I agree and there should probably be a 'common best practice' drawn up for both allotments and plot holders that both the site supplier, Council or otherwise and the individual has to follow but it would have to be set by some respected organisation possibly the NALG - I certainly wouldn't trust the councils to do so nor the Government - it must be a group with vast experience of allotments who have the best interests of plot holders and the allotment sites in mind.

[sparrow100]

A 5 year waiting list is ridiculous - rather than blaming fellow plot holders I think I would be campaigning for the Council to make more plots available to meet their obligations under the legislation.

I agree. And so do the Council according to their strategy. But it's a high density area and I think they would be pushed to identify land of a size. On balance I think that priority is rightly being given to education and health spending. And we just need to sort ourselves out a bit.

[Sheneval]

I think this is where the problem arises - Education, Health an many others are Nationa issues whereas Libraries, Community Centres and Allotments are local issues - the money for the former should come from National taxation whereas the money for the latter should come from local taxation - I suspect Councils like to create this confusion as it gives them the excuse to raise local taxes without people complaining they don't need to do so. In any case Councils generally have land available so don't need to spend money just rent the land to those who wish to start an allotment society and run same.

[Thelma Sanders]

The Council may have land available in your area, but here in the South it's not the case. All available land has had houses built on it, because of the need for more to be available.

However the bills are paid - by local or central taxation, it would mean us paying more if larger allotments had to be provided - at a time when family budgets are already strained.

[Sheneval]

The Council may have land available in your area, but here in the South it's not the case. All available land has had houses built on it, because of the need for more to be available.

However the bills are paid - by local or central taxation, it would mean us paying more if larger allotments had to be provided - at a time when family budgets are already strained.

The way things are paid for is very important - National taxation is payable by most of us after taking our tax allowance into account. Local taxation has no tax allowance therefor 10% of your income paid locally actually equates to 20% of National taxation and of course is only payable by the main householder so many earners pay nothing in local taxation.

It is of course your choice as to whether you want to pay the cost of for new allotments - if you don't and the Council has no other option but to reduce the size of your plots then then I suppose they have the right to do what they want. Of course if you decide this is the case then I suppose others should have the right to say they don't want to pay for the local library, swimming pool, Youth Centre, parks and any other things people don't want to pay for but it would make it a poor place to live if we applied that criteria to all the facilities the Council tax pays for - however your choice is yours to make - others would make different choices.

[Bill HH]

Can someone tell me what the law says about local authorities providing allotments? Do they have to and if so is there a fixed area they have to supply in relation to the population.If councils are in breach of this act has anyone challenged them in court?