Tell Eric Pickles To Sod Right Off

[SarahBell]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61225

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, is examining plans to free local authorities from a 103-year-old obligation to provide plots of public land for cultivation by gardeners. The proposals could see local authorities, many of them strapped for cash under government-imposed cuts, selling off allotment land for social housing or even for profit to major companies.

MODS: Can this stay on the front page for a couple of hours?

[LiveinHope]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61225

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, is examining plans to free local authorities from a 103-year-old obligation to provide plots of public land for cultivation by gardeners. The proposals could see local authorities, many of them strapped for cash under government-imposed cuts, selling off allotment land for social housing or even for profit to major companies.

MODS: Can this stay on the front page for a couple of hours?

Never had an allottment

Would avoid an allotment 'lifestyle' like the plague (don't want to be dealing with other people when growing my veg)

But I'm with you 100% on protecting their provision

Occasionally, the most fringe actions make me loathe politicians of any persuasion. What was that about 'nasty' parties ?

Edited March 30, 2014 by LiveinHope

[Frank Hovis]

Despite his avuncular jolly fat man image Pickles is doing serious damage; whatever his agenda is I don't like it.

[Bloo Loo]

strapped for cash means they need more of your money.

Government machine has pensions to pay.

Fixed location assets are easy targets.

[council dweller]

Yes well..

So, you create a shortage of housing which forces people to rent or buy a small flat or house with a tiny garden which creates a demand for allotments....you get the picture.

And then more people will have buy their veg from supermarkets....and so it goes on.

[LiveinHope]

Yes well..

So, you create a shortage of housing which forces people to rent or buy a small flat or house with a tiny garden which creates a demand for allotments....you get the picture.

And then more people will have buy their veg from supermarkets....and so it goes on.

They fear independence

The new Taylor Wimpey Estate in my 'village' has tiny gardens, but part of the planning permission was the provision of a patch of ground behind the development for alllotments - most likely for future development .....

Edited March 30, 2014 by LiveinHope

[council dweller]

They fear independence

That is probably so.

We were mostly independent 60 years ago followed by dependent, now we have food banks.

Hungry hordes haven`t entered their heads.

[Butthead]

Really? A thread encouraging artificially preventing house building by forcing local authorities to withhold land for that purpose? On HPC?

[LiveinHope]

Really? A thread encouraging artificially preventing house building by forcing local authorities to withhold land for that purpose? On HPC?

Wherever possible, build every house with an allotment sized garden (that has a depth of soil and not rubble) - much better than a remote allotment - much like 1950-60's Council houses, like a property where someone I know lives who manages to feed their family on vegetables and eggs year round

[gf3]

Really? A thread encouraging artificially preventing house building by forcing local authorities to withhold land for that purpose? On HPC?

That was my thought initially but I changed my mind. There is loads of land out there. Taking away allotments is just a lazy way of getting building land.

[juvenal]

Petition signed.

[Butthead]

That was my thought initially but I changed my mind. There is loads of land out there. Taking away allotments is just a lazy way of getting building land.

Aah right. You want land available for house building but you want it to be your choice of land and not the bits you don't want.

I look forward to your next post in a thread about NIMBYism. Same goes for anyone signing this petition.

[Squeeky]

If you are of the gardening persuasion and live in rented accommodation an allotment is a pretty good way forward as you only have to worry about being in a specific area and it is far less dramatic when you have to move.

Container gardening only gets you so far and costs significantly more than using the ground.

NIMBY's is about things that affect your local area that you don't own or rent. i.e the plot of land next door that you happen to overlook/pass by etc. is being used for another purpose that you don't like. Allotments are (or at least should be) in active use by the local community. The same as parks, football grounds etc. that are typically owned by the local council.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Squeeky

[montesquieu]

Duly signed. All part of the consipracy to get rid of the little things that make life bearable for people, so that TBTB can profit.

[Blod]

Wherever possible, build every house with an allotment sized garden (that has a depth of soil and not rubble) - much better than a remote allotment - much like 1950-60's Council houses, like a property where someone I know lives who manages to feed their family on vegetables and eggs year round

+1

There should be legal standards which provide suitable gardens. Otherwise we might as well just have flats and sod the kids.

[Smyth]

That was my thought initially but I changed my mind. There is loads of land out there. Taking away allotments is just a lazy way of getting building land.

This is the most classic of classic NIMBY arguments - "but there is more than enough land in OTHER places inn the UK, you dont need to build on THIS bit..."

[Bloo Loo]

This is the most classic of classic NIMBY arguments - "but there is more than enough land in OTHER places inn the UK, you dont need to build on THIS bit..."

this is not about NIMBY.

This is about a way for the council to save money on all the millions they spend on allotments...

And for developers to get their hands on that little bit more....to cover the costs of the incumbant councils..

[Smyth]

Wherever possible, build every house with an allotment sized garden (that has a depth of soil and not rubble) - much better than a remote allotment - much like 1950-60's Council houses, like a property where someone I know lives who manages to feed their family on vegetables and eggs year round

There is absolutely zero reason for social housing to have gardens, and to be honest, building them with gardens is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard (sadly, it was popular for a while). The whole point of social housing should be to build it as cheaply and high density as possible so that people who are in need of having their living costs subsidised by the tax payer do get something (ie they arent on the street), but a) the cost to the tax payer is as low as possible, and the quality of accommodation is worse than typical private accomodation so the people still have an incentive to work for something better.

A collection of 200 social houses without gardens is better than a collection of 180 social houses with gardens, since it uses space more efficiently and houses more people If you are being given free accomodation at the tax payers expense then you should be grateful, not complaining that you cant grow cucumbers or have a barbeque or whatever. Those things are not essential to life, they are luxuries that should go to the people actually willing to pay for themselves, rather than those who demand that others pay for them on their behalf.

[Smyth]

this is not about NIMBY.

Its entirely about NIMBY, the argument is literally "dont build houses here, I want to use it for growing cucumbers (subsidised by the taxpayer! dont you dare ask me to pay for the service I am using)"

[Bloo Loo]

Its entirely about NIMBY, the argument is literally "dont build houses here, I want to use it for growing cucumbers (subsidised by the taxpayer! dont you dare ask me to pay for the service I am using)"

Nimby is the cover for cash strapped councils plundering the public wealth.

If councils wanted to build, there are millions of acres that can be released.

I dont have an allotment, nor is there one I am aware of nearby...but I want public areas to remain so...particularly that which produces real wealth.

You only have to see what happened not that many years ago, acres and acres of public right land taken by land thieves and a few allotments handed out to appease the peasants.

Check out the history of Westonbirt Arboretum.

[Bloo Loo]

There is absolutely zero reason for social housing to have gardens, and to be honest, building them with gardens is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard (sadly, it was popular for a while). The whole point of social housing should be to build it as cheaply and high density as possible so that people who are in need of having their living costs subsidised by the tax payer do get something (ie they arent on the street), but a) the cost to the tax payer is as low as possible, and the quality of accommodation is worse than typical private accomodation so the people still have an incentive to work for something better.

A collection of 200 social houses without gardens is better than a collection of 180 social houses with gardens, since it uses space more efficiently and houses more people If you are being given free accomodation at the tax payers expense then you should be grateful, not complaining that you cant grow cucumbers or have a barbeque or whatever. Those things are not essential to life, they are luxuries that should go to the people actually willing to pay for themselves, rather than those who demand that others pay for them on their behalf.

I think you are quite young.

This free accomodation often ends up as BTL as quite often social housing is anything but.

[gf3]

This is the most classic of classic NIMBY arguments - "but there is more than enough land in OTHER places inn the UK, you dont need to build on THIS bit..."

You couldn't be more wrong.

I have never had an allotment, I have never grown anything to eat, the nearest to me is about two miles away (if it is still there) and I think they look an eye sore.

How ever once they are gone they are gone. I put the pleasure of 12 people doing their allotment above one person with a couple of horses in a field.

Oh and there are fields closer to me than the allotments are.

Edited March 30, 2014 by gf3

[Neverwhere]

Nimby is the cover for cash strapped councils plundering the public wealth.

If councils wanted to build, there are millions of acres that can be released.

I dont have an allotment, nor is there one I am aware of nearby...but I want public areas to remain so...particularly that which produces real wealth.

You only have to see what happened not that many years ago, acres and acres of public right land taken by land thieves and a few allotments handed out to appease the peasants.

Check out the history of Westonbirt Arboretum.

+1

Totally agree. This is about taking public wealth and moving it into private hands.

[gf3]

There is absolutely zero reason for social housing to have gardens, and to be honest, building them with gardens is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard (sadly, it was popular for a while). The whole point of social housing should be to build it as cheaply and high density as possible so that people who are in need of having their living costs subsidised by the tax payer do get something (ie they arent on the street), but a) the cost to the tax payer is as low as possible, and the quality of accommodation is worse than typical private accomodation so the people still have an incentive to work for something better.

A collection of 200 social houses without gardens is better than a collection of 180 social houses with gardens, since it uses space more efficiently and houses more people If you are being given free accomodation at the tax payers expense then you should be grateful, not complaining that you cant grow cucumbers or have a barbeque or whatever. Those things are not essential to life, they are luxuries that should go to the people actually willing to pay for themselves, rather than those who demand that others pay for them on their behalf.

Then you end up with a no go area that costs a lot to police.

[LiveinHope]

Then you end up with a no go area that costs a lot to police.

Just build prisons.