Allotments 4 All
Allotment Stuff => Allotment Movement => Topic started by: SMP1704 on March 14, 2011, 21:55:35
-
These our are new allotment rules
http://www.hounslow.info/parks/allotments/documents/ALLOTMENTS-AllotmentRules_V3.pdf
What do you think? How does it compare with yours? I'm pleased that we finally have a clear definition of cultivation but other bits just seem OTT
This is in a really obscure part of Hounslow's website and existing plotholders were not consulted or notified that the rules had been finalised - although for a local authority I really shouldn't be that surprised.
-
SMP1704,
just a general comment on such documents being OTT.
Unfortunately, there are usually a small number of plot holders who will either deliberately push the rules or decide because something is not specifically written down anywhere then it is assumed to be ok.
In addition, there are occasions when you would think that common sense will prevail ... only to find out that you were somewhat naive in your thinking. A small example on our site concerns parking. There is a car park next to the main entrance but there are also places on the site where you can sensibly park nearer to your plot ... but not all people are sensible seemingly.
Therefore, the authors of such documents tend to feel the need to spell things out in great detail in (arguably vain) attempts to minimise the amount of subsequent aggro. You will probably find that many items have been the source of some grief in the past.
Just one nit-picking observation ... the criteria for cultivation presumably apply in (say) late spring, but it does not say this. To state the obvious many plots would probably fail if they were applied in autumn or winter?
-
To be of any use they should be easily available to all plot holders-not just those who go to the trouble of looking on obscure parts of the web site.
I take it you are council managed.
To me they look ok. I guess that the council has to put in everything it can think of because otherwise some person could say "well it's not in the rules" that I can't move in and have a party till 3 am. ;) ;)
Didn't notice anything about not growing cannabis though!!!
I agree with BAK - at one time it was enough to say something is just commensense .Not any longer ??? ??? ???
-
In genreal they look OK if perhaps a bit detailed. Not too sure about 1.2, that seems very harsh and not in line with ' A Place to Grow' the government's own advice to councils on management of allotments.
Some medical problems might last for more that 3 months but after treatment the person would have fully recovered. Allowance of some kind needs to be made for these cases.
-
Thanks all. I was surprised by some of the 'bans' i.e. no ponds and remove fruit trees at end of tenancy.
There is a lot there that is included because of 'problem' tenants, where you would think common sense and decency would indicate the right thing to do...........but then they do the opposite.
I'm still wondering why it's buried in the back pages of the website.
yes, we are council managed (if rather arms length) Pumpkinlover - Was talking to someone wanting an allotment at the weekend and they asked 'do people live here?' :o so you're right the rules do have to cover every eventuality.
BAK - good point on cultivation, the inspections start in March and run through to October and to be honest, its cultivation that's my bug bear - why take on a plot and do nothing with it???
-
Our rules cover basically the same ground, but in a couple of dozen very short sentences. But then we are on hand to "interpret" for those thickies who don't understand.
And we don't ban ponds, or insist that trees are removed at the end of tenancy. (They're a perk for the next tenant!)
-
We actually did have a couple of people living on the site during the Blitz. That's the only time I've heard of such a thing though!
-
Just wish our council showed the same interest, because of the lack of interest by our landlord some allotment holders on our site don't give a toss about anything, they can't even be bothered to lock the allotment gates so I can't wait for the travellers to arrive on site,I have also informed the council but was as happened nowt,
-
A bit detailed but as said people do push the boundary's so lots of rules are needed
Agree 1.2 is harsh and I'm sure they would have no right to see your medical records ???
Ponds, with H&S and children on site I can understand this, but a compromise could be found with a small shallow pond with meshing over it
We are allowed bonfires, but only if the wind is blowing away from the houses on one side of the plot, no one should need more than one fire a year, so do it on Guy Fawkes :P
We don't have hoses, we have water troughs
Ours says, grow fruit, veg, flowers or lawn ???
I can also understand removing tree's, some on our plot put them all over the place and it is hard for the next tenant to plant rows of veg.
;)
-
Kev is speaking sense (for once ;D ;D ;D). I agree with him. Deep ponds could be a real danger with young children or even shallow ponds, agree children should be supervised, but would hate an accident to happen on our allotments. My small trees have got very big, pity the next tenants to dig them up, so all in all sensible rules.
-
I do so hate rule-mongers. It's an allotment, not the United Nations.
Note that the landlord can't just change the rules, and the rule that says they can is meaningless (another consequence of UTCCR 1999).
That rule about being evicted if you have your stuff stolen also seems rather harsh.
-
That rule about being evicted if you have your stuff stolen also seems rather harsh.
I've just read that one U/W and it is rather badly worded.
Unfortuantly I doubt if there's anything in there that someone hasn't done at some time on a plot and that's probably why they are so specific. ???
commensense just evaporates I'm afraid >:(
-
Over the years we've had people try and take topsoil home, try and bring topsoil ( with possible introductions ) in, use a broken down caravan as a shed and abandon it when they left. We've had someone try and live in their shed, use their allotment for airgun practice, try and build over their whole allotment, turf 90% with small bedfs cut in to grow the tiny amount of veg, fill a massive new pond from the water tap ( probable cost around £200, yes, that big a pond), remove 70 year old boundary hedge and replace it with a low fence ( site security compromised), place gates between their allotmen and their house, then move house and leave a gap in the boundary hedge. We've had people ignore giant knotweed, claim as permaculture a badly tended plot, grow 40 or 50 kg of onion sets and make 200 hanging baskets then sell them all in their greengrocers, hard landscape a sizeable area for 3 cars to stand when a group is on site, store out of tax vehicles on plots.
Many of these things could be hard to deal with if the rules were too few and vague. Several of them produced a need for specific rules to prevent reoccurence. Any rule that assumes common sense is hard to enforce.
-
We've had all that and more.
But that was the old "committee"....
-
That rule about being evicted if you have your stuff stolen also seems rather harsh.
This one?
Theft of produce, plants or other items from a plot without permission of the tenant of the plot concerned will automatically have their tenancy agreement terminated.
Doesn't say that the person who had stuff stolen will be evicted; but the person who steals will be.
-
Speaking sense who me, I take it all back, :P I agree with UW about just changing the rules, I forgot to add that bit. Where's the bit about being evicted if you have your stuff stolen, I must have missed that bit. ???
Edit, got it.
-
That rule about being evicted if you have your stuff stolen also seems rather harsh.
This one?
Theft of produce, plants or other items from a plot without permission of the tenant of the plot concerned will automatically have their tenancy agreement terminated.
Doesn't say that the person who had stuff stolen will be evicted; but the person who steals will be.
Technically it only refers to one person, the tenant of the plot concerned. It's immensely badly worded.
-
"Animals or livestock must not be kept on site, with the exception of hens or rabbits and then, only with the permission of the Council or its managing agent"
You have a legal right under The Allotment Act 1950....an act passed by Parliament...to have hens and rabbits on your allotment and the Council can not do anything about it....they cannot pass byelaws on an act passed by Parliament either!
-
That rule about being evicted if you have your stuff stolen also seems rather harsh.
This one?
Theft of produce, plants or other items from a plot without permission of the tenant of the plot concerned will automatically have their tenancy agreement terminated.
Doesn't say that the person who had stuff stolen will be evicted; but the person who steals will be.
Technically it only refers to one person, the tenant of the plot concerned. It's immensely badly worded.
As theft is the illegally taking of another person's property; it is implied in the use of the term 'theft'.
-
We know what it's meant to say but as a fact it doesn't say it.
It says that if theft occurs from a tenant then their tenancy will be terminated. There is no mention of the thief ( who might not be a tenant anyway). This is poor English.
-
As theft is the illegally taking of another person's property; it is implied in the use of the term 'theft'.
The gramatical error in the sentence is a hanging antecedent, so like DJB says, we know what it's meant to mean, but that's not what the words say, and in a contract it's what the words say that count. As it's not in plain english the term is unenforceable.
And you shouldn't seperate a dependent clause with a semi colon. And you shouldn't start a sentance with a conjunction.
-
"Animals or livestock must not be kept on site, with the exception of hens or rabbits and then, only with the permission of the Council or its managing agent"
You have a legal right under The Allotment Act 1950....an act passed by Parliament...to have hens and rabbits on your allotment and the Council can not do anything about it....they cannot pass byelaws on an act passed by Parliament either!
You're absolutely right, and because the landlord has gone further than permitted by statute there's a strong argument to suggest that the term itself is unfair under UTCCR 1999, with the result that the rule couldn't even be used to stop someone keeping a pig on their plot.
It really pays to draft rules cautiously.
-
Another thought- Council run allotments may feel they need more detailed rules than self-managed because the council officers are not there on a regular basis. Self-managed sites have a committee who are known to everyone and are there on a regular basis.
-
Thank you all - I am having a chuckle to myself....
As a site sec; I have been going on about having clear guildelines about cultivation and non-cultivation and what will happen and within what timescale if cultivation standards are not met. That has still been fudged and we are left with this grammatical pile of nonsense (sigh)
No wonder I am throwing in the non bleached, organic hand woven towel at the next AGM ;D ;D
Borlotti with regard to ponds and children - I'm fairly certain that there is an implied term that small children as well as dogs should be kept on a lead! The only children that run riot on our site are the uninvited sort and if they fell into a pond............
-
And you shouldn't seperate a dependent clause with a semi colon. And you shouldn't start a sentance with a conjunction.
Jeez. You are telling me off for starting a sentence with a conjunction by starting 2 off with....conjunctions.
And you shouldn't spell sentence sentance - you should spell it correctly.
And you shouldn't spell separate seperate, you should spell it correctly.
Otherwise, surely with two spelling mistakes and so many grammatical errors, people aren't going to know what you mean.
-
And you shouldn't seperate a dependent clause with a semi colon. And you shouldn't start a sentance with a conjunction.
Jeez. You are telling me off for starting a sentence with a conjunction by starting 2 off with....conjunctions.
;)
-
Current thinking is that in some circumstances conjunctions can be used to start a sentence if it adds emphasis. And that there need only be one space between sentences.
I am waiting for the day when they say we should type/write letters like the younger generations text. Cor blimey!!
How many mis-understandings will there be then!
Bill
-
Come on forum let's create some more rules...I'll start it off.
WHEELBARROWS MUST NOT SQUEEK.
My wheel barrow is crying out for a drop of oil, and squeeks like mad. I'm not sure whether it should be a notice to quit or a warning offence though?
Nodig
-
As theft is the illegally taking of another person's property; it is implied in the use of the term 'theft'.
The gramatical error in the sentence is a hanging antecedent,
**** me, you had a tough English teacher
-
I will read the said rules later , was there anything in there about weed spraying , my ******** next plotholder did it and killed my sweetcorn a couple of years ago, also width of path needs rules, personally i think dogs should at best tethered , best left at home , kids also.. ;)
-
As theft is the illegally taking of another person's property; it is implied in the use of the term 'theft'.
The gramatical error in the sentence is a hanging antecedent,
**** me, you had a tough English teacher
Google is your friend :D
-
**** me, you had a tough English teacher
The rule doesn't make sense. What counts in a legal document is what the words say, not what the writer says they say. If you're going to write a tenancy agreement or site rules you need a competent grasp of grammar.
-
Come on forum let's create some more rules...I'll start it off.
WHEELBARROWS MUST NOT SQUEEK.
My wheel barrow is crying out for a drop of oil, and squeeks like mad. I'm not sure whether it should be a notice to quit or a warning offence though?
Nodig
Leave it under Kev's car. That should oil it up a treat.
-
I would like a few rules, no dogs do for a start. As for interpretting rules, no hosepipes seems to mean very different things to different people.
-
I wouldn't mind that rule about children
Children must be accompanied at all times by an adult and not allowed to go onto adjacent plots
I want to be weeding not entertaining some one else's child.
-
We have as few rules as we can get away with - dont really understand the need for endless rules.
If it doesnt fit on a page of A4 then you have too many rules ;)
As for children on a plot - personally I love to see it. We have plenty of young uns and they are well looked after by the parents and get very involved!