Topic: Dave & Nick to remove statutes regarding allotment supply!!

[tonybloke]

please join in.
http://www.nsalg.org.uk/index.php

[Robert_Brenchley]

Done. They need to strengthen that, not remove it! Mind you, the way things are going, they only need to mention a policy to have to reverse it, so maybe we should be begging them to ban all allotments.

[dtw]

done!

[pigeonseed]

I found this quite hard - the reference number they require is DCLG_136 if anyone wants to fill in this webform. It doesn't seem designed for normal members of the public to access this consultation.

[kt.]

Just done.  My main concern would be if it was removed then more sites would be sold to development :-\

[pigeonseed]

Yes and the amount of land needs to be flexible upwards as well as downwards - if more people want allotments, we need more land to be made available.

I feel like market logic rules our society, and land is crazily valuable for profitable housing, and allotments can't compete if we let them fight it out on the open market. If you measure things according to other values, as well as financial, then allotments are precious. But we need legislation to allow that value to assert itself.

I think the current legislation is to weak, it allows councils to promise they 'considered' it but offer excuses as to why they don't need to act. I'd love to see more a robust law, making it harder to refuse requests. I somehow doubt that sits easily with Tory ideology though...

[Duke Ellington]

Done. They need to strengthen that, not remove it! Mind you, the way things are going, they only need to mention a policy to have to reverse it, so maybe we should be begging them to ban all allotments.

I love a bit reverse psychology Robert!! ;)

[Digeroo]

I can only hope that if they repeal the Allotment Act that they also repeal the Enclosure acts and give the people back the common land.

[powerspade]

Thatcher destroyed our industries now Nick and Dave want to destroy our society so much for the big idea and big society. Everyone who loves gardening and allotments should rally and fight these people and save our allotments

[OllieC]

I couldn't see any mention of Dave or Nick trying to remove anything ??? - Can someone show me where either of them have said this please?

[tonybloke]

at the moment it's a govt exercise to see which parts of 'the burden' of complying with statutes that L.A.'s could stop doing. It is part of the current govt's ideas on shrinking local government.

[OllieC]

Is it part of the localism bill? I went to a very boring talk by a local (tory) councillor about that a couple of weeks ago - even the guy talking didn't really understand it. Looks like a mandate for developers to do what the hell they like. According to him (and I think he was in favour of it) - to set up a group representing local interests will cost that group £20k. It's going to place such a financial & time burden on local groups that very few will be able to organise themselves sufficiently.

[caroline7758]

From yesterday's Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/gardening/exclusive-the-end-of-the-good-life-2277463.html

[tonybloke]

good link Caroline, thanks for posting!

[djbrenton]

"We are inviting you to comment on the duties and to challenge government on those which you feel are burdensome or no longer needed."

Government response

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: "The Government is reviewing old and unnecessary duties imposed on councils in order to free them up from Whitehall red tape and as part of this we have published the list of duties, including on allotments. However, we will not remove statutory protections for allotments or vital frontline services."




This is a pre-emptive strike launched in an alarmist manner by NASLG. The government have published a list and invited comments. That's all folks! This so reminds me of all the reports we used to see that The Common Market were going to ban our sausages or cukes that weren't straight enough. Allotments are one of nearly 1300 aspects of local government that are being reviewed. I'm not saying it's impossible that there could be changes but to suggest that the governemnt are trying to remove those statutes is just plain dishonest.

[djbrenton]

Just a quick look at the list of statutory duties placed on local authorities highlights such anachronisms as



"Duty placed on all occupiers of land in a rabbit clearance area (the whole of England, apart from the City of London, Isles of Scilly and Skokholm Island) to kill or take any wild rabbits on their land.
Where it is not reasonably practicable to do so, they are obligated to prevent the rabbits from causing damage elsewhere by, for example, fencing them in with rabbit-proof fencing.
"
Left over from 1954 when rabbits were a problem throughout the country. Do we really feel there should still be a statutory duty to kill all rabbits?


"Duty on local authorities exercising functions of a county council to provide extracts from deposited inclosure awards at rate of 1.25p/72 words, and to provide access to the awards"

No idea if this is still necessary as a result of the Inclosure Act 1854.

"Transport for London To replace lost or defaced driver's badges
London Hackney Carriages Act 1843"  - this needs to be a statutory duty does it?

"Reports by certain parish councils and certain local authorities exercising functions of a district council (as successor bodies) to Secretary of State as regards recreation grounds and field gardens"
Obsolete requirement to report to Inclosure Commissioners - "Commons Act 1876 Section 28"


Part of this review (long overdue) is to try and assemble all these duties in one place for the first time and then to discard those which no longer have any purpose.

[Robert_Brenchley]

I've seen fields overrun with rabbits. Myxy is no longer lethal, and there should definitely be a duty of them to control rabbits. The government is now denying that there's any intention of removing the requirement for allotments (which will make it harder for them to do so in the future), but since when have politicians been trustworthy?

[arunginny]

"This is a pre-emptive strike launched in an alarmist manner by NASLG" - I dont believe this, NSALG were particularly poor at communicating what is happening, we didnt find out until after the consultation period had expired - some people found out from NASLG a day or 2 before it expired which is pretty poor. If they wanted to be alarmist and get as much feedback on the 'consultation' they would have informed members 6 weeks earlier, assuming they knew about it. If they didn't know about it then the whole 'consultation' is floored and should be repeated.

Furthermore, the list under consultation doesn't seem to be a full list of statutory duties, our local council confirmed there are several thousand statutory duties. They also confirmed that they didnt know the consultation was being completed. If the council dont know about a consultation process then why should anyone else know? If people dont know about a time limited consultation then the whole process is either floored or deliberately kept at a low [profile to claim a consultation process has been completed, while makes me very suspicious of the process.

Has the government actually stated now that they will not repeal or amend  Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 Section 23 ? The answer is no as far as I can see, in which case it is still under consideration.

I urge all allotment holders to write to their MP and demand that this essential law to protect allotment provision in the UK is kept, and even strengthened, and for the replies to be posted back into this forum for everyone to see.

Come on people, dont let apathy ruin allotment gardening for future generations, its time to act, now.

Use this link to find and write to your MP :)

http://www.writetothem.com/

Cheers everyone

Happy gardening

[powerspade]

I had a email from NASLG weeks ago about this

[arunginny]

It seems like NSALG don't keep record of all members details ( none of our site members anyway ), maybe one contact per site or if you are an individual member, so dissemination of this information was very limited. The original email was sent out on 15th April, with letters being sent on 18th April, both far too late to get proper consultation for this issue which was launched 4 weeks beforehand. They weren't told about it until the 15th, so much for a consultation!