In August 1965, a formal government inquiry into allotments was initiated by the then Ministry of Land and Natural resources under the leadership of Professor H. Thorpe. Their report’s 350 pages was published 4 years later and is now often referred to by many as the ‘Thorpe Report’. It was never taken up and was left on the shelf until we dusted it down.
In the last 50 years more power
has been decentralised and local government structure has radically changed with
a general move towards localism and local decision making and away from the central
approach of the day.
Today we review and summarise its
75 pages of findings and recommendations. Time and circumstances have moved on and
predicting 50 years ahead is almost impossible and although we may disagree
with many of the recommendations it is interesting to acknowledge the thinking
of the day and wonder what its impact would have been if it had happened. The
consensus on the day was, that unless the provision and administration of
allotments changed and the wider concept of gardening as a recreation was
adopted allotments would slowly disappear.
There are too many
recommendations to cite in detail but there are some important changes that
were advocated (our thoughts are included in italics):
Repealing the various Allotment
Acts and creating a new ‘Leisure Garden Act’ which would charge local
authorities into managing and providing leisure gardens under new leisure
garden authorities. There is a clear shift in thinking from allotments as we
know them to a wider view of leisure gardens similar to that we have when we look
at community gardens today. This could be similar in its impact to that when
rural smallholdings diverged from allotments at the beginning of the 20th
century.
‘A leisure garden is one of a
group of contiguous plots of land, each not exceeding twenty poles in extent
and not attached to a rateable dwelling, provided by a leisure gardens
authority for recreational gardening by the occupier and his family.’
The new Act should contain clear tenancy
principles and ‘model’ rules issued by the Minister and be part of local authority
planning. These included rules on; no livestock except bees, strict control on
all structures in terms of size, materials, shape, location and even colour,
security etc. The issue of cultivation and non-cultivation and the storing of unsightly
or inappropriate material and equipment and fires are also covered. Authorities
may amend these along the same lines with the minister’s consent. The same
start point but variance inevitable so questionable. This clearly goes much
further than the current situation in that encompasses these tenancy rules within
the law.
That while the ultimate responsibility for the condition of the communal areas should rest with the leisure gardens authority, there should be local association which manage the day to day issues and the part of which the association and its members play in the maintenance of the site should be reflected in the rent which is charged. This would change the rent from one based on land or usage to include contribution and rebates.
An interesting imposing of a fine on anyone convicted of causing damage to a leisure garden, its crops, fences, buildings. In principle laudable but questionable as this should be covered under standard law and fines aligned accordingly.
Leisure gardens should be designated ‘established’ or ‘non-established’. Established being owned by the authority and within its control for at least 21 years after establishment, viable within the current urban plan, and these definitions are similar in many ways to the current ‘statutory’ and ‘temporary’ definitions under the 1925 Act but include the provision of half an acre for each thousand of their population but it exempted the City of London and inner London boroughs and authorities with populations under 5,000. It did state that all sites must be correctly denoted on the town map. Existing statutory and temporary allotments would be divided into three categories; a. sites who qualify for establishment status with recommendation of potential contraction or expansion, b. sites worthy of retention for different periods as non-established sites, c. sites to be discarded. The recommendations to many simply changed the words but put every site under the microscope and the ratio of people to acreage would probably expand to exempt must major cities where the need and demand is greatest.
Authorities would be required to transmit to the Minister a full register of sites and classification with a map showing their distribution. Once registered the authority would be required to commence a full programme of improvement. Until site registration is complete sites protected under section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 would still have the same protection as current. The statutory allotments committee should be abolished. The challenges over status both old and new would be significant, time consuming and potentially costly if contested.
Leisure gardens should be managed on a day to day basis by Parks department. Today we appreciate the far wider benefits and environmental and community and health and wellbeing associated with cultivation and it is very questionable if this is the appropriate department.
Applications for plots would try to establish the applicant’s preferences on use, location and cultivation planned. Once on an established site, the plotholder could swap to the other use and authorities replace structures (sheds) with ‘summerhouses’. The division of community (chalet) gardens and allotments would start to diverge under this and it is questionable if this discriminatory approach is correct and the whole ‘utopia’ envisaged would seem impracticable.
The twelve months’ notice would be applied to both the established status groups, but where a site, or part, was required for roads, or sewers this could be reduced to six months. If leased the maximum detailed in the lease would apply, and where a non-established site is required for the purpose for which the land was originally acquired, six months would be applied and if the tenant breach agreement without sufficient cause one moth’s warning would be followed by one month’s notice. Interestingly a tenant who moves outside the authority’s area would not automatically forfeit his right to retain his plot. These in some ways follow today’s practice but open up many ways in which and authority could foreclose.
If the loss of an area did not reduce the statutory half an acre per thousand population it would be able to decide on disposal and on replacement without reference to higher authority. If the loss reduces the requirement below the figure, a new site to cover this could be made available to displaced plotholders before old site is closed, and that decision would remain within the authority. However, if an authority can’t replace, or has been granted exception, an application can be made to the Minister. Again, the transparency of the registry in 1969 would have made this a potential nightmare to scrutinise and even today it is very questionable if it could be effectively managed.
There is a table (48, Page 320)
which recommends rents for a 10 rod plot (sorry in old money and impossible to
relate to today but raises a few interesting points, especially on
supplementary items):
Basic rent for an unimproved site
the same for both status sites 30s and with full amenities more than doubled to
£5 for established sites. Provision of full amenities were not applicable for non-established
sites.
There was a proposed
supplementary charge of a £1 for a £20 shed, £3 for a £40 greenhouse and £9 for
a £120 summerhouse. We can estimate these costs today and proportion
accordingly.
Another table 49, page 322) gave
5 examples of methods of assessment of rent in 1969:
The first three are as above with
(4) an established site with an association running its admin and maintenance estimated
to save £50 with each tenant paying £5 basic rent and a rebate of £60 retained
by the association.(5) Established fully equipped 100 plot site leased to an
association, the estimated saving being £80 and with basic rent of some £500
and a rebate of £100 to the association.
The recommendations above are but
a sample of that proposed to be included in the new statue. Personally, I feel
the moves were far too ambitious and disruptive, but that some are worthy of
note. What is interesting today is to witness the divide between allotments and
community gardens, the disparity between rural and urban and inner-city allotments
and the ambiguity that continues between statutory and temporary status and a
lack of comprehensive registration. Thorpe clearly envisaged a move away from
the traditional allotment and administration and need to have better
definitions within statute. The question is how long it will be before another
Thorpe Report is commissioned and whether the outcomes those will be radically
different?
