Kitchen Garden Forum

I heard on the radio 2 news this morning that an allotment holder of 20 years in Cheltenham has been evicted for not growing enough vegetables which seems crazy..
I'm sure there must be more to it than that.

Anyone in the Cheltenham area know the full story?

Beryl.

Daily Telegraph online has the story here.

Selected highlights are:
...John Weston, ...two council-owned plots ...demand for the allotments has risen dramatically in recent years, and the local authority has clamped down, enforcing rules which state that 75 per cent of the land must be used for growing produce.
Mr Weston, from Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, admits that his land is not as well-stocked as some other plots, but argues that he uses it as a “rural retreat” where he can relax and enjoy the outdoors.
“We would not ask any plot-holder who was making good use of their land to hand it back.”


Having read the full article it reads as a failure to cultivate according to that council's 75% rule and the gentleman was warned, but denies it.

Many thanks Peter. I had a feeling there was more to it.

Beryl.

Beryl, there's more...

Try the Local website here.
Complete with comments from neighbouring plotholders.

Why not compromise and make him give up one plot.

Thanks Peter.

I can see both sides top this. Many many years ago allotments were provided for the poorer members of the community to subsidise their low income by growing their own food. However over the years this has changed and when allotments were in the decline and not so popular for Mr. Weston to use his plots as a rural retreat would have been better than see the site 'go under concrete'. However, with the demand so high now I agree with Tiger perhaps he should be allowed to keep one of his plots and give up the other.

We have a similar ruling now in Gosport that tenants must be seen to be cultivating.

We have had the agument of plotholders having more than one plot before so I won't go into that again but I do feel all the time the plots are well maintained and in cultivation it shouldn't be a problem. If
Mr. Weston was warned 6 months ago, he should have done something about it before now.

Beryl.

Like you suspected, Beryl, there seems to be more to it than appeared on the radio, as I read in the paper today.
The chap had two allotments and only grew vegetables and fruit on a very small proportion of them. The remaining part was left to grow wild (no, doubt, lovely for the local bird and insect population, but hard cheese for the people on the waiting list!). On our very small rural allotment site (just 8 plots), one of the plots is now getting completely overgrown and if we don't do anything, there'll be weed seeds scattered over all the rest of us, so we'll have to get the scythe to it before this happens. So, really, for two reasons I can see why the local council in Cheltenham acted as they did!

If you look at the pictures on the website that Peter provided and read the comments I feel that the council have acted very responsibly.
His two plots were a blot on the landscape. It will take anybody taking on those plots several years work to get them up to descent production.
I do not know about this 75% rule about vegetable production but it is obvious that very little of the plots was used for anything other than harbouring weeds. That in itself is exceedingly anti-social on an allotment site. I suspect the new people will get a rousing cheer from the old tenants and get the support to lick them into shape.
JB.

I'm all for live and let live however it's fine to have "a wild bit" if like us it's in a corner of your garden at home but on the allotment it should be cultivated.We have a couple of plots on our site which have gone virtually unworked for two years,they flank a beautiful plot and the plotholder is obviously dismayed as these two get the usual letter ,plot not worked ,any problem?Blah Blah Blah. then nothing for another year.They seem to pay their rent and think they own the place.

On 2 previous allotments we were unfortunate enough to have people nearby who were like this gentleman, who liked 'their bit on the wild' and it was so frustrating as their weeds make it impossible for us to keep our plot even reasonably free of weeds when they spread so rapidly. So I have a great deal of sympathy with other plot holders who must have been in despair. Allotments are for growing vegetables, fruit and flowers and if they're left to run wild it's totally unfair on other plot holders as well as the people on the waiting list. He seems to have had enough warning so I'm not sure he really has any right to complain.

Hi all. I am in complete agreement with you, Primrose. We have several plots on our site in similar states, some close to ours. The one behind ours grew nothing but thistles and I used to let them flower (the bees loved them) then take my shears and chop all the heads off before they seeded. Things are improving now on our site as we have a new secretary and he is working with the council to get rid of tenants who pay up, but don't work the plots. The thistle plot behind us, now has new tenants and he has worked very hard and transformed the plot beyond all recognition. I have no sympathy with this bloke whatsoever and I'll bet the general consensus on his site is "good shuttance" !!! Cheers.

I just came across this posting when searching for posts on allotment shortages. As a member of the committee of an allotment in central Dartford, we have seen all our 80 plots filled in the course of two years; when I joined, about 2.5 years ago, only seven plots were cultivated. In the last couple of weeks, we have been contacting those plot holders who happily hand over their £20 annual fee, but do little with them. Our rules state you have to cultivate 25% of the plot in the first year and 100% thereafter. However, we want plots to look neat and tidy, which can often mean a quarter of the plot given over to sheds, paths, ponds, etc.
Some members fight tooth and nail not to have overgrown plots brought back into cultivation on grounds of "biodiversity", even though 40% of our overall site is not cultivation, but left wild, because we don't own it. This is ultimately futile, since bramble-covered plots don't result in diverse biology; they simply kill everything underneath, including worms and slugs/snails. We lack the critical mass to make a huge difference to the environment. I feel it's much better for individual plot holders to create small areas on their own plots for the wildlife. I have nine compost bins made from lashed-together pallets, in which dozens of common lizards (a protected species) have set up home and live beside me happily. Other, more "biodiverse" plot holders leave areas of weeds, which I feel do little to help anything.
I don't know if it is true of other areas, but in this part of NW Kent, it is now impossible to get allotments. Dartford has none left that can easily be brought back into cultivation. All the surrounding parish allotments are full, while neighbouring Bexley is also apparently full.
In these types of situation, I feel it is incumbent on sites not only to bring back into cultivation as many plots as possible, but also to kick people off who simply don't do anything with their land.

I agree with several of the points made here:
Ask for one plot back. Very sensible, it makes the point without demolishing one persons idyl. Expelling him completely is a bit cruel and poor politics too.
It also makes the warning really clear about Use it of Lose it. I also agree with this approach.
It does appear that the time from warning to eviction was short; I think the monitoring needs to be maintained because a plotholder neds time to rectify the position (and if you warn someone you also need to agre a timetable to rectify things)
One year's seed, seven years weed - I suspect we all suffer from this to a degree. We have a "nature area" which is, essentially just a neglected zone and has a lot of nettles which flower and seed