Do the costs of allotments have to be recouped and if so is there a time period

Question

Our Parish Council has land which can be used for allotments. However the cost of fencing and preparation are quite high and there is an argument that the cost benefit analysis makes this a non-starter.  Providing allotments is a duty. Bearing this in mind, so we have to recoup costs and if so is there a time period?  Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

Provision of allotments is only a duty when it is shown that it is required by the community. This should be ascertained by consultation by the PC. Once decided it is then a long term commitment ( and cost) to the PC. Setting up the infrastructure from scratch can, as you state, be expensive. That should then be budgeted for. Supply of fencing, security and utilities all need to be costed in. It would be a matter of good fiscal prudence for those costs to be recouped via rents for the plots and accept that there will be an extended re-payment period (if ever)to cover the set up and ongoing costs.

Allotments are an obligation for the PC to supply if the community so demand and the costs must be met. But of course allotment holders are traditionally great team players and readily available to help build their dream rather than relying on outside contractors at £X. Make it a community project and consult so they "take ownership"

Comments

Thanks for this. We have a long waiting list so the demand is clearly there. And I agree. Community spirit can certainly help spur on team work to help get it right. Appreciate your comments very much.

Answer 2

It’s a simple business case analysis - not notably different from, for example, a s137 application.
PC may have land which can be allocated to GYO allotments but that’s not to say PC has to organise, administrate and maintain the facility.
‘Someone’ - logically one who desires an allotment - needs to formulate a needs analysis which identifies and demonstrates sufficient interest to make the project viable (number of participants x rent = annual income), Then they need to constitute a ‘group’ to organise and administer routine maintenance, rental collection and terms & conditions of membership.
That type of detail should be presented to PC so that PC can identify up front costs and balance these against the likely timeframe for financial recovery and the general ‘benefit’ to the community  
Then maybe a rational decision might be made. There may be scope for PC financial subsidy but only if the number of allotmenteers equates to a significant proportion of the community. If not then the PC may be subsidising a relatively small portion of the community and subject to challenge/criticism.
As a general concept - most groups / organisations / facilities should aim to be financially self sustaining. If not, there needs to be a watertight argument that the subsidy equates to significant community gain.

Comments

I should imagine most allotments make a loss I know ours do even though we’ve never been given any figures
What makes it even more ludicrous in our case is that the allotment holders asked to be allowed to self manage the sites but the offer was turned down

---

Part of the inherent madness of town and parish councils - the aversion to releasing any form of 'control' from central to more localised administration.

There is a long standing issue over how much the PC pays for the provision and maintenance of the football pitches here.

Not helped by the complete ignorance and financial ineptitude of the PC over decades and a previous corrupt clerk that 'resigned' shortly after receiving some 'searching' questions about financial management and payments to himself.  Of course the resignation came with the obligatory NALC endorsed threat of Ind Tribunal but that soon evaporated when countered with the realisation that a fraud enquiry would follow.  He left, but not before arranging for the forensic wipe of PC IT equipment!

I digress.  The PC here have completely failed to realise that they are subsidising the football club to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds through the mechanism by which they facilitate the grounds maintenance - the cost of which outstrips the rental income revenue by factors of 10s.

Too lazy to analysis the figures, too arrogant to listen to reason and too fearful of (what they perceive) as a loss of 'control' over a facility.
Morons would be too generous a way to describe them....