Full report on the Open Meeting of tenants on July 20th
I know many of you wanted to come to this meeting but were unable to do so. A lot of people turned out and the Council Chamber was pretty full, but Monday evening wasn't the best time for some people so I hope this report will get all the significant information across. I hope I've included everything you need to know, but as it is already so long I haven't included every question and detail. It was a useful and productive meeting, the proposals which were outlined all made sense and there was nothing to scare us. Julie Rogers, who is Head of Environmental and Customer Services, introduced the meeting with a full report on what has happened so far in the Allotment Review.
Following the Ashford Allotment Society committee meeting on June 3rd, Julie set up a Working Group of council officers and plotholders to discuss the outcomes of the survey and consider the possible solutions to the problems facing both the department and plotholders. The department of The Environment has been set the task of balancing the income and expenditure on allotments to produce a so-called 'cost-neutral budget'. After overheads, staff salaries and other unavoidable costs have been set aside, the costs incurred by the allotments amount to £12,410. Last year the income was about £6,500, leaving a shortfall of about £6,000.
At this point I should make it clear that this isn't the total cost of running the allotments to Ashford Borough Council. It's the amount they had to spend out to outside bodies - for example, if theallotments were to opt for self-management, this is the amount of money it would cost them to run the allotments. Once you add in staff salaries, costs of the allotments' share of running the Civic Centre etc etc etc, that added another £38,678 in 2014-15. We are not being asked to make THAT balance!
One of the questions on the survey sent out in the spring was whether the Allotments Society should take on the management of the allotments. All other questions aside, it is clear that the deficit of £6,000 a year would, on its own, make this impracticable.
Reducing costs.
The Working Group has looked at ways of reducing costs, and the fairest ways of raising more money to close the gap. The Council contacted other authorities in the area, and took advice from National Allotment Society's South-East representative Steve Clements, to see what other authorities are doing in the same situation.
It was found that there are only two significant running costs which could be reduced; water charges and the cost of keys. Water charges are currently about £4,000, and the cost of replacing keys is £500. The cost of things like path mowing is very small, and is bound up in larger contracts for mowing sports fields and so on.
Water management
Julie revealed that the Working Group found that the amount of water used by plotholders varies a great deal from site to site. Once water leaks have been discounted, the average annual cost of the water used varied from 80p per perch on some sites to a maximum of £4.62 per perch on others. This would mean on some sites, plotholders are using an average of over £23 worth of water on a 5-rod plot, each year.
This variation was a surprise to many of us. Clearly not everyone is using the same amount, which means some plotholders are using an incredible amount of water. Do their plots look nearly six times as good as the plots on the sites which use the least water? Is the soil in the borough so different that some sites need six times as much water? This seems unlikely.
The survey showed that water charges would be very unpopular, and the Working Group felt it would be unfair for sensible plotholders to pay for the water used by those who squander it. While introducing an average water charge would set a figure of £2.32 per rod per year (ie a 5 rod plot would incur a water charge of £11.60 a year), this would clearly result in sensible users subsidising those who waste water.
Water management is still very much under discussion in the Working Group. Some ideas which were put forward have already been rejected as too impractical or too unfair. The main proposal, which is now already in force since the posters went up last week following the meeting, is that watering with hosepipes will no longer be allowed, whether fitted with a spray head or not (the use of sprinklers was already prohibited under the existing rules).
This measure has been brought in after full discussion and after plotholders on the working party had carefully assessed, by monitoring use and meters, the amount of a site's water use which is down to hosepipes in comparison with cans. To make things fair to those a long way from a tap, hosepipes may be used to fill butts or even, in the case of those with health problems, to fill cans. As we understand it, what will no longer be allowed is holding a hose and using it to squirt or spray water over the plot. Meanwhile, the Working Group is looking into ways of helping people obtain water butts cheaply, and projects for fitting shed roofs with gutters and downpipes are also being looked at.
The common sense and co-operation of all plotholders will be needed to reduce water costs, and the working group believes this can be done without damaging good gardening practice or affecting people's crops.
It is hoped that by banning hosepipe watering, the use of water across the borough can be brought down by 25%. If this can be done, it should be possible to avoid bringing in water charges and thus everyone will benefit.
Deposits
First of all the Working Group looked at the idea of charging people a deposit when they take on a plot, to be refunded when the plot is handed back in good condition (an idea which was floated in the survey). There are various reasons why this was felt not to be a good idea, one of them being that many people take on plots which are in a bad state to start with. Moreover, it was agreed that charging rent in advance instead of in arrears would have much the same effect, of ensuring new plotholders were committed, without the hassle and admin.
However, as seen, the costs of supplying replacement keys was £475 last year. This is in part due to the keys costing more than the council charges for them, and in part due to people not handing them in when they give up their plot. The Working Group agreed that it would make sense to charge a deposit of £25 for the key, to be refunded when it was given back. This would only apply to new plotholders so wouldn’t affect anyone already with a key. The cost of additional or replacement keys would now be £10 each, though this would be refundable up[on return. One benefit of getting keys back from ex-plotholders would be increased security onsite, as hopefully there would be less keys floating around with people who don’t have plots any more.
Increasing the amount coming in.
Another approach to the deficit which was considered is ways of increasing the amounts received in rent. Rather than simply looking at rent increases for existing plotholders, the Working Group has been looking at ways of increasing the amount of rent generated and reducing the amount of rent which is lost.
Aspects which have been considered include:
1. Minimizing the time during which vacant plots stand empty.
2. Tackling the high number of people who take on a plot, never get to grips with it, and at the end of the year refuse to pay the rent they owe.
3. Levels of concessions and who they are offered to.
4. Rents overall.
Filling vacant plots.
Getting a quick turnaround for vacant plots is something which has been sought after for many years. However, that on its own isn’t enough. It’s also important to make sure that people who take on a plot are actually going to work it. The Working Group looked at ways of insuring that only those who are serious about putting the work in ask to go on the waiting list. At the moment there is a lot of time-wasting and this increases admin costs and results in plots sitting empty for a long time, thereby losing rent.
Some sites have more vacant plots than others. The Working Group is still looking at how plots are offered to people on waiting lists to see if the take-up on less popular sites can be improved.
The Working Group found that other authorities ask for payment in advance and not, as Ashford alone does, send out bills for the year which has just gone. This would straight away mean that new tenants would have to show some commitment, and there would be no defaulting at the end of the year. Changing the payment time would take care, however, as the shift from payment in arrears to payment in advance might lead to people being sent two bills in one year.
How tenants are invoiced
However, another idea raised by the Working Group was to change the time that invoices were sent out from April to October. This would mean plots were more likely to change hands in the autumn, which is much better gardening practice. To help out with the ‘two bills in one year’ problem’, the council is suggesting that plotholders get a rent-free period from April to October this year.
Just changing from billing in arrears in April, to billing in advance in October, would have a number of beneficial effects and help with lost income. It would start people at the best time of year, insure they had a commitment before they took on a plot, and would hopefully also reduce the time that plots stood empty.
Concessions (free plots)
While solving these problems would help, it wouldn’t be enough to close the gap on its own. The working group then looked at what other nearby authorities charge in rent, and what they offer in the way of concessions for pensioners and those on benefit. Rents in other authorities in Kent vary enormously, from £3.30 a perch to £11.33 per perch. The current cost in Ashford is £5 a perch. However, other authorities do not let people have plots free of charge.
The Working Group considered the results of the survey and were concerned that removing concessions completely would cause some people to give up their plots. On the other hand, the council calculated that over the next few years, a large number of existing plotholders will reach retirement age and thus would qualify for free plots, thus reducing rental income severely. Free plots were originally offered at a time when allotments weren’t popular and a lot of plots were standing unused. Now there is a waiting list this is an anomaly. It was felt by the Working Group that the time had come to bring Ashford into line with other authorities.
The changes proposed (and these are just proposals which require approval by the cabinet of the Council) are that plotholders who currently qualify for free plots would, in the future, get the first 5 perch at 50% of the going rate. For any extra land they would pay the same as everyone else.
It is suggested that in future people will qualify for concessions if they are in receipt of the state old age pension or a means-tested benefit, and in the latter case will be asked to sign an annual declaration that this is so.
The Working Group realised that there are cases where a plot is in the name of a pensioner, but in fact younger members of their family are the ones using it, thereby getting free use which they aren’t entitled to. For those cases where younger people are using an elderly relative’s plot, Julie suggested a possible amnesty period in which the records could be brought up to date. (Following Julie’s presentation one plotholder came forward at the time to say they were doing this, and wanted to put things right.)
Rent levels
Even with this change, a modest increase in rents will still be necessary if the allotments are, as required by the council, to break even. Julie apologized for the wording of the survey, which led people to fear that a large increase was being contemplated. With the cost-saving measures proposed, it is expected that the necessary increase will be kept to 20% (£1 a perch) over the next two years. It would be applied as an extra 50p a perch on the bill to come out for the new advance rent in October 2015 (for the year Oct 2015 - Oct 2016), and another 50p a perch on the bill received in October 2016 (for the year 2016-17). This, with the cost-reduction measures planned, would enable the Environment department to bring about the required 'cost-neutral balance'.
What happens next.
However, final decisions still have to made as Julie Rogers and the council team have been waiting to get feedback from the meeting, before putting together the proposals which will be passed to the Cabinet for approval in the autumn. It is hoped that a decision can be made during September or October.
The rest of the meeting.
Once Julie had presented the conclusions of the Working Party, there was a general discussion of the proposed ban on the use of hosepipes for watering, in which everyone who wished to was able to ask questions or make arguments, and these were answered by members of the Working Group. A few people present argued that a ban would cause them problems. It was agreed that ways would be worked out so that anyone who had genuine health problems was able to water their plots. Members of the Working Group made it clear that the aim of the ban was to stop people wasting water, not to make life hard for sensible gardeners. Advice on saving water, reducing the labour involved in watering and best gardening practice came from both the floor and the plotholders on the Working Group, and it was made clear that more would be discussed about this as the ban came into effect. The council is also hoping to source very cheap water butts for people, and other ways of helping plotholders collect rainwater are planned.
Then those present were invited to look at the topics which had been considered by the Working Group and add their own ideas.
•What does an allotment holder expect from the Council?
–Does this differ for new allotment holders?
•What does the Council expect from allotment holders?
The topics were printed out on large posters round the room, and everyone was given post-it notes and pens so they could add their comments, queries and suggestions. Many people added their remarks, and matters such as secure fencing and overhanging trees were raised by a lot of plotholders. After the meeting the posters were carefully rolled by Eileen so that the post-it notes stayed in the right place and comments could be properly noted down and form an action plan for the Working Group at future meetings. Julie has promised that the future discussions of the Working Group will not only be given to the committee of the Ashford Allotment Society at their meetings, but will also be shared with all plotholders via the noticeboards and the website.
The document which follows is the text of the posters which were put up in the meeting room, with the comments which were attached by post-it note following in orange. These have been sent to me by Julie Rogers so I can put them on the website for everyone to see. Use the controls at the bottom and side to scroll up and down or enlarge the writing.
Following the Ashford Allotment Society committee meeting on June 3rd, Julie set up a Working Group of council officers and plotholders to discuss the outcomes of the survey and consider the possible solutions to the problems facing both the department and plotholders. The department of The Environment has been set the task of balancing the income and expenditure on allotments to produce a so-called 'cost-neutral budget'. After overheads, staff salaries and other unavoidable costs have been set aside, the costs incurred by the allotments amount to £12,410. Last year the income was about £6,500, leaving a shortfall of about £6,000.
At this point I should make it clear that this isn't the total cost of running the allotments to Ashford Borough Council. It's the amount they had to spend out to outside bodies - for example, if theallotments were to opt for self-management, this is the amount of money it would cost them to run the allotments. Once you add in staff salaries, costs of the allotments' share of running the Civic Centre etc etc etc, that added another £38,678 in 2014-15. We are not being asked to make THAT balance!
One of the questions on the survey sent out in the spring was whether the Allotments Society should take on the management of the allotments. All other questions aside, it is clear that the deficit of £6,000 a year would, on its own, make this impracticable.
Reducing costs.
The Working Group has looked at ways of reducing costs, and the fairest ways of raising more money to close the gap. The Council contacted other authorities in the area, and took advice from National Allotment Society's South-East representative Steve Clements, to see what other authorities are doing in the same situation.
It was found that there are only two significant running costs which could be reduced; water charges and the cost of keys. Water charges are currently about £4,000, and the cost of replacing keys is £500. The cost of things like path mowing is very small, and is bound up in larger contracts for mowing sports fields and so on.
Water management
Julie revealed that the Working Group found that the amount of water used by plotholders varies a great deal from site to site. Once water leaks have been discounted, the average annual cost of the water used varied from 80p per perch on some sites to a maximum of £4.62 per perch on others. This would mean on some sites, plotholders are using an average of over £23 worth of water on a 5-rod plot, each year.
This variation was a surprise to many of us. Clearly not everyone is using the same amount, which means some plotholders are using an incredible amount of water. Do their plots look nearly six times as good as the plots on the sites which use the least water? Is the soil in the borough so different that some sites need six times as much water? This seems unlikely.
The survey showed that water charges would be very unpopular, and the Working Group felt it would be unfair for sensible plotholders to pay for the water used by those who squander it. While introducing an average water charge would set a figure of £2.32 per rod per year (ie a 5 rod plot would incur a water charge of £11.60 a year), this would clearly result in sensible users subsidising those who waste water.
Water management is still very much under discussion in the Working Group. Some ideas which were put forward have already been rejected as too impractical or too unfair. The main proposal, which is now already in force since the posters went up last week following the meeting, is that watering with hosepipes will no longer be allowed, whether fitted with a spray head or not (the use of sprinklers was already prohibited under the existing rules).
This measure has been brought in after full discussion and after plotholders on the working party had carefully assessed, by monitoring use and meters, the amount of a site's water use which is down to hosepipes in comparison with cans. To make things fair to those a long way from a tap, hosepipes may be used to fill butts or even, in the case of those with health problems, to fill cans. As we understand it, what will no longer be allowed is holding a hose and using it to squirt or spray water over the plot. Meanwhile, the Working Group is looking into ways of helping people obtain water butts cheaply, and projects for fitting shed roofs with gutters and downpipes are also being looked at.
The common sense and co-operation of all plotholders will be needed to reduce water costs, and the working group believes this can be done without damaging good gardening practice or affecting people's crops.
It is hoped that by banning hosepipe watering, the use of water across the borough can be brought down by 25%. If this can be done, it should be possible to avoid bringing in water charges and thus everyone will benefit.
Deposits
First of all the Working Group looked at the idea of charging people a deposit when they take on a plot, to be refunded when the plot is handed back in good condition (an idea which was floated in the survey). There are various reasons why this was felt not to be a good idea, one of them being that many people take on plots which are in a bad state to start with. Moreover, it was agreed that charging rent in advance instead of in arrears would have much the same effect, of ensuring new plotholders were committed, without the hassle and admin.
However, as seen, the costs of supplying replacement keys was £475 last year. This is in part due to the keys costing more than the council charges for them, and in part due to people not handing them in when they give up their plot. The Working Group agreed that it would make sense to charge a deposit of £25 for the key, to be refunded when it was given back. This would only apply to new plotholders so wouldn’t affect anyone already with a key. The cost of additional or replacement keys would now be £10 each, though this would be refundable up[on return. One benefit of getting keys back from ex-plotholders would be increased security onsite, as hopefully there would be less keys floating around with people who don’t have plots any more.
Increasing the amount coming in.
Another approach to the deficit which was considered is ways of increasing the amounts received in rent. Rather than simply looking at rent increases for existing plotholders, the Working Group has been looking at ways of increasing the amount of rent generated and reducing the amount of rent which is lost.
Aspects which have been considered include:
1. Minimizing the time during which vacant plots stand empty.
2. Tackling the high number of people who take on a plot, never get to grips with it, and at the end of the year refuse to pay the rent they owe.
3. Levels of concessions and who they are offered to.
4. Rents overall.
Filling vacant plots.
Getting a quick turnaround for vacant plots is something which has been sought after for many years. However, that on its own isn’t enough. It’s also important to make sure that people who take on a plot are actually going to work it. The Working Group looked at ways of insuring that only those who are serious about putting the work in ask to go on the waiting list. At the moment there is a lot of time-wasting and this increases admin costs and results in plots sitting empty for a long time, thereby losing rent.
Some sites have more vacant plots than others. The Working Group is still looking at how plots are offered to people on waiting lists to see if the take-up on less popular sites can be improved.
The Working Group found that other authorities ask for payment in advance and not, as Ashford alone does, send out bills for the year which has just gone. This would straight away mean that new tenants would have to show some commitment, and there would be no defaulting at the end of the year. Changing the payment time would take care, however, as the shift from payment in arrears to payment in advance might lead to people being sent two bills in one year.
How tenants are invoiced
However, another idea raised by the Working Group was to change the time that invoices were sent out from April to October. This would mean plots were more likely to change hands in the autumn, which is much better gardening practice. To help out with the ‘two bills in one year’ problem’, the council is suggesting that plotholders get a rent-free period from April to October this year.
Just changing from billing in arrears in April, to billing in advance in October, would have a number of beneficial effects and help with lost income. It would start people at the best time of year, insure they had a commitment before they took on a plot, and would hopefully also reduce the time that plots stood empty.
Concessions (free plots)
While solving these problems would help, it wouldn’t be enough to close the gap on its own. The working group then looked at what other nearby authorities charge in rent, and what they offer in the way of concessions for pensioners and those on benefit. Rents in other authorities in Kent vary enormously, from £3.30 a perch to £11.33 per perch. The current cost in Ashford is £5 a perch. However, other authorities do not let people have plots free of charge.
The Working Group considered the results of the survey and were concerned that removing concessions completely would cause some people to give up their plots. On the other hand, the council calculated that over the next few years, a large number of existing plotholders will reach retirement age and thus would qualify for free plots, thus reducing rental income severely. Free plots were originally offered at a time when allotments weren’t popular and a lot of plots were standing unused. Now there is a waiting list this is an anomaly. It was felt by the Working Group that the time had come to bring Ashford into line with other authorities.
The changes proposed (and these are just proposals which require approval by the cabinet of the Council) are that plotholders who currently qualify for free plots would, in the future, get the first 5 perch at 50% of the going rate. For any extra land they would pay the same as everyone else.
It is suggested that in future people will qualify for concessions if they are in receipt of the state old age pension or a means-tested benefit, and in the latter case will be asked to sign an annual declaration that this is so.
The Working Group realised that there are cases where a plot is in the name of a pensioner, but in fact younger members of their family are the ones using it, thereby getting free use which they aren’t entitled to. For those cases where younger people are using an elderly relative’s plot, Julie suggested a possible amnesty period in which the records could be brought up to date. (Following Julie’s presentation one plotholder came forward at the time to say they were doing this, and wanted to put things right.)
Rent levels
Even with this change, a modest increase in rents will still be necessary if the allotments are, as required by the council, to break even. Julie apologized for the wording of the survey, which led people to fear that a large increase was being contemplated. With the cost-saving measures proposed, it is expected that the necessary increase will be kept to 20% (£1 a perch) over the next two years. It would be applied as an extra 50p a perch on the bill to come out for the new advance rent in October 2015 (for the year Oct 2015 - Oct 2016), and another 50p a perch on the bill received in October 2016 (for the year 2016-17). This, with the cost-reduction measures planned, would enable the Environment department to bring about the required 'cost-neutral balance'.
What happens next.
However, final decisions still have to made as Julie Rogers and the council team have been waiting to get feedback from the meeting, before putting together the proposals which will be passed to the Cabinet for approval in the autumn. It is hoped that a decision can be made during September or October.
The rest of the meeting.
Once Julie had presented the conclusions of the Working Party, there was a general discussion of the proposed ban on the use of hosepipes for watering, in which everyone who wished to was able to ask questions or make arguments, and these were answered by members of the Working Group. A few people present argued that a ban would cause them problems. It was agreed that ways would be worked out so that anyone who had genuine health problems was able to water their plots. Members of the Working Group made it clear that the aim of the ban was to stop people wasting water, not to make life hard for sensible gardeners. Advice on saving water, reducing the labour involved in watering and best gardening practice came from both the floor and the plotholders on the Working Group, and it was made clear that more would be discussed about this as the ban came into effect. The council is also hoping to source very cheap water butts for people, and other ways of helping plotholders collect rainwater are planned.
Then those present were invited to look at the topics which had been considered by the Working Group and add their own ideas.
•What does an allotment holder expect from the Council?
–Does this differ for new allotment holders?
•What does the Council expect from allotment holders?
The topics were printed out on large posters round the room, and everyone was given post-it notes and pens so they could add their comments, queries and suggestions. Many people added their remarks, and matters such as secure fencing and overhanging trees were raised by a lot of plotholders. After the meeting the posters were carefully rolled by Eileen so that the post-it notes stayed in the right place and comments could be properly noted down and form an action plan for the Working Group at future meetings. Julie has promised that the future discussions of the Working Group will not only be given to the committee of the Ashford Allotment Society at their meetings, but will also be shared with all plotholders via the noticeboards and the website.
The document which follows is the text of the posters which were put up in the meeting room, with the comments which were attached by post-it note following in orange. These have been sent to me by Julie Rogers so I can put them on the website for everyone to see. Use the controls at the bottom and side to scroll up and down or enlarge the writing.
