Topic: email campaign to save our lotties

[westsussexlottie]

What is the land designated as on the local plan? This is really important.
You need to encourage the local planning authority's conservation officer to push for allotment use rather than housing designation.
Might be worth doing a traffic survey - over an hour or so at peak weekend allotmenting time - to show how few pedestrians are at risk etc...

[Merlins Mum]

We have been in contact with a senior planner with Cherwell District Council who says that in 2002 in was down for commercial use but the current plan no longer shows development.  We know that anyone is entitled to put in for planning permission on land that they own but we do not understand why they are doing so now when the local plan has been changed.  They appear to be 2 years out of date! 
In their statement they mention concerns of safety, yet this only seems to bother them now, people have been walking across the allotment site from the time the new road was built to take their dogs for a walk.  While there are only a few of us using the allotments, there is no problem with access or parking.  In fact some walk or bike to the site.

MM

[fat larry]

i've been a bit schtum on this forum for a while - madly busy with this and work etc. Thanks for all the support and info – the church at first said they 'had' to develop cos it is on the local plan. we've now proved that to be untrue, so now they come up with spurious safety concerns. I'm not impressed. I walk to the allotment with my children and getting across the road sometimes means waiting a few mins at rush hour. there is loads of verge space to park on, and a nice convenient gate off the roundabout that could easily lead to a hardcore parking space ... if the owners of the land were to actually be supportive of sustainable initiatives

[fat larry]

from today's oxford mail (not my paper)

Allotment squatters get good news from church

A CHURCH at the centre of a row over gardeners squatting at its allotments
has agreed to look into issuing short-term leases.
 Six green-fingered Bicester residents took over plots at the centuries old
allotment site off Skimmingdish Lane about six months ago, without the
permission of the landowner and without paying rent.
 They have since been asked to leave by the Diocese of Oxford, which owns
the land, and told that new tenants were not wanted.
 The gardeners say they are happy to pay rent, but just want to grow
vegetables.
 Last month, the group lobbied Bicester town councillors, who agreed to
write to the diocese.
 Now The Rev Richard Thomas, pictured, communications director, has issued a
statement saying the church was considering granting short-term contracts.
 He said the church had an obligation to make the most of its assets, but
had not made a decision on the future of the land.
 The statement said: "Meanwhile, we also need to respond to the small, but
vocal group who have decided, illegally, to squat on this land and wish to
use it for allotments until the future use of this land is decided.
 "Whilst we are certainly open to this consideration, there are a number of
issues that need to be addressed."
 The Rev Thomas said there were questions of safety at the site, including
access from busy Skimmingdish Lane, and the suitability of the site due to
the recent construction of the bypass.
 One of the gardeners, Pauline Sallis, said the group was hopeful it would
be allowed to stay.
 She said: "We are optimistic but it's a shame we have to wait so long.
 "There are other things we would like to be doing but we are not going to
spend our money if we have to move in a couple of weeks."
 The diocese said it would announce its decision on Monday, June 27.

[Merlins Mum]

The Church has issued a statement and it's not good news.  Basically they want us off as of now.
I intend to write to the person handling this and plead for us to at least be able to stay until we can harvest what we have planted. 
Here is their statement in full

GLEBE LAND ADJACENT TO SKIMMINGDISH LANE
Tuesday 21st June 2005.

This release relates to the email release sent to local media on Wednesday 25th May 2005 about the possibility of allowing a small group of squatters a limited right to cultivate land on the former allotment site adjacent to Skimmingdish Lane.

In that release we said:

Whilst we are certainly open to this consideration, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before we can properly respond:

There is a question about the safety of part of this land, not least because of the recent development of the access road.
There is a question about access and parking, as the site is close to a major road.
There is also a question about the suitability of this site for allotments, as much of the land has been spoiled following the construction of the access road.

After careful legal consultation, we have been advised not to issue licences, and we have no plans to do so in the future. The press conference planned for Monday 27th June is therefore cancelled."

Feeling gutted  :'(
MM

[westsussexlottie]

Sorry to hear this. What they are concerned about is by issuing licences to use the land they may make it harder for themselves to develop it...
I don't know what else to say on the matter really other than I am really sad to hear this news. Seems it is happening all over the place - all day meeting today in Godalming about Farncombe allotments being developed into housing...

[Merlins Mum]

Thanks Lottie.  I know some areas need more housing but it's wrong that allotments should come under threat because of this.  They are so good for you, we all know how good they make us feel 99 percent of the time.
MM

[wivvles]

Any idea what the "careful legal consultation" came up with?

[Merlins Mum]

hi wivvles
no, they wouldn't say but reading between the lines I think they are worried that if they gave us short term leases, say a year, they might find it even harder to get us off the land.
MM

[katynewbie]

Will be emailing anyone I can think of tonight. Just a thought.....our future king is very pro organics etc, what about a letter to his Charlesness just because you can?!!! I really hope it all works out for you guys, I just got a plot after waiting 4 years on some stupid waiting list, so I understand your frustration!!
To the barricades 8) !!!!

[katynewbie]

Ooooooooh!!! Just thought, Sir Jonathon Porrit!! Used to be just an environmental campaigner but is now a speaker on religious matters too, also used to be an advisor to P.Charles...he might be an ideal person to contact, but dont know how!!
Btw, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea I am NOT fixated on royalty!!! :-\

[wivvles]

hi wivvles
no, they wouldn't say but reading between the lines I think they are worried that if they gave us short term leases, say a year, they might find it even harder to get us off the land.
MM

In which case, continue occupation and campaign.  From above posts, I get the impression that the local authority aren't keen on developing land.  If the Church want to appeal against that, it will take time.  In the meantime, your campaign can continue to build support.  Photos in the paper of productive allotments, happy children etc can only be helpful

[Merlins Mum]

Yes wivvles, the local authority have no plans at this time to build on the land.  I have every intension of going up there regularly and looking after what I already have growing, as to whether I will continue to get the rest of the plot straight, that will depend probably on the weather!  8)  So terribily hot here and has been for a week.
We haven't given up!

MM

[fat larry]

the church reasons for us not staying:

Access: but there are four gates on to the land, two big enought to drive a bus through
parking: it isn't a spectator sport. there are seven plots at the mo, and some of us don't drive
safety: Accusing the council contractors of leaving the land in a dangerous state, seems to me to be a dangerous statement.

It's rubbish, but trying to put the blame on others (first it was cherwell council for designation of the land, which we proved to be wrong, then they came back with the above rubbish) saves them the ungodly indignity of admitting they wanna keep the land derelict in a bid to get planning permission more easily by saying nobody wants the land.

If it is so dangerous over there what about the dog walkers who use it and their last legal tenant who left in April? And what about their letter to a woman who lives near here offering her a plot last June. What has changed since then? Other than our audacity in questioning the role of the church in this whole sorry affair. Has stuff like this happened before I wonder?

I don't post much on here as on the advice of you guys I took it to the papers, including my own, which has led to the church accusing me of furthering my own interests. I agree and have never sought to hide my role, but all I want is to a) grow veg and b) create a community asset for the town! What do they want, what's their interest? To make mucho money.

[Robert_Brenchley]

The way churches behave sometimes just makes me ashamed! It's not the first time I've felt severely embarassed to be involved with such an organisation but at least I'm not an Anglican. They've got severe financial problems awaiting them as they lost a load of money through bad investments some years ago, and are having trouble paying their ministers. They're much more minister-dominated than us Methodists; we can adapt to not having many of them, the Anglicans would have to make some serious changes to their system, and even worse, their theology. So the bureaucrats have got their underwear in a twist. The best way to get the church to budge is to embarrass it, so carry on as you are!

[fat larry]

oxfordshire county council came back to me re the land being spoiled or dangerous as a result of the development (by them). they said 'it's totally untrue, there would have been hell to pay if we had' - which I thought was amusing, given the nature of the land owners' work! they also said the church asked for access to be put in!

it's nice to know that the church of england is open and honest in its dealings with its people – I saw Rowan Williams (archbish of canterbury) bemoaning internet forums like this in the news the other day. Would be much easier for them if we all still doffed caps and tugger our forelocks as they swept by, wouldn't it.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Don't forget that ordained ministry, priesthood, whatever you want to call it, developed in a cap-doffing age. they're like royalty, dependent for their long-term survival on a mystique they're having more and more trouble maintaining. It's not surprising they feel threatened by forums like this one!

[redimp]

We had to campaign against the church here in Lincoln over a different but equally sensitive issue.  They own and run the local private school.  Next to it is the oldest pub in Lincoln - which had extensive gardens and mature native trees with rope swings and a play area.  The pub was profitable and was a really nice place to go for a traditional pint.  They wanted to extend their science facilities so the could let in some more poor little rich darlings into there privileged fee paying school.  They tried to close the pub to use the ancient buildings as a storage facility.  We campaigned against it and managed to save the pub.  However, they still ripped the heart out of it and turned it into a clone pub.  Took 7/8ths of the garden and put up and ugly fence just leaving a strip of bare grass.  Some of the trees have been cut down, they ripped up the best boules court in Lincoln and now only the pupils have any access to the nice part of the garden and the remaining adventure play area (they already had one of these the general public did not have access to in the shadow of the cathedral)  They have always said that the Tory party and the established church are one and the same thing.  Their business practices would suggest that that assessment is about right.

[Robert_Brenchley]

You can see why I'm not part of it! I get quite worried by talk of Methodist/Anglican union.

[moonbells]

But then again there is a wide range of Anglican thought.

I am in the evangelical end, and don't agree with a lot of the woolly reasoning behind a lot of the decisions that are made by the high church end.  Not all Anglicans are the same...

I feel embarrassed by this whole thread, even more so because to most folk here including the Christians it is not a good example of Christianity, but apparently a very good example of what Christ warned us about as regarding the love of money!
Even if that's not what the Oxford diocese see from their point of view, it's not what's coming across... and so often it's perception rather than intent which changes everything.

moonbells  :(