City council rent bombshell for allotment holders

Nottingham City Council is holding a consultation of changes to allotment tenancies, rent levels and plot allocation. They claim that the review "aims to encourage more people to get involved with growing food in Nottingham." In fact, the changes would involve the trebling of rents for allotments in Nottingham.

A skim read of the proposed changes to tenancy agreements does not reveal anything too controversial. In fact, a lot of the proposals are good ones (in principle) because they aim to deter the passing on of allotments to friends when there are people on the waiting list for new ones.

However, it is my view that these are not the core aims of the review. By far the biggest change to the current system is the proposed changes to rents for plots. The current figures, listed in a table in the consultation are: Ground rent - 7p/sqm, water charge - 6p/sqm (it doesn't say what the units are). However, they are proposing a gradual increase in grount rent so that, by 2016 it will be 20p/sqm for ground rent and 15p/sqm for water. This is a 180% increase for ground rent and 150% increase for water. These figures are well beyond the rate of inflation and will make allotment holding and growing your own food a much more costly activity. 

Given the massive cut to their budget, it's not surprising that NCC are looking for ways to make money, especially as they claim to be trying to provide enough allotments for the increasing numbers of residents who want one. However, passing that cost on to existing allotment holders seems extremely unfair. Allotment holders, after all, are usually the people who can't afford houses with gardens and grow their own food to supply their food needs.

All allotment holders are being sent a consultation pack which they can use to object to the proposed changes. Given NCC's past record on consultations (ignoring the results they don't want, rigging them so they get the results they do) I don't imagine we'll get much positive interaction through bureaucratic routes. However, I'm sure there are more creative ways we could protest this unequitable move.