Decision on allotment fees deferred following previous Labour administration failures

The Public Health and Communities Committee has decided to defer a decision on increasing allotment fees, following widespread objection. A new proposal will be brought to the committee in their October meeting.

The decision to defer follows a rejected amendment from Labour councillors to increase allotment fees by only 50% of what was proposed in the original paper.

The Greens, who previously called in the controversial plans to more than double allotment fees, were in favour of this amendment, which was rejected from being heard on a legal basis.

Following the deferral and rejected amendment, Green Councillors have said that they will work hard to ensure that councillors have more opportunity to shape and amend papers in the future.[1]

Greens have also blamed the previous Labour administration for not implementing agreed gradual fee rises earlier.

Cllr Fi Hance, who sits on the Public Health and Communities Committee, said, “What we were faced with today were uneven and inequitable rent rises based on a flawed consultation process which the call-in committee never got to scrutinise.”

“Whilst I am glad that the decision has been deferred, we desperately need to find a stopgap solution for a fair rent rise in 2025/26 to avoid the collapse of the service. This will give us time to work with officers and allotment holders on a more permanent solution to reset rents in a more equitable way.

“It has been six years since allotment rents have risen and we still have no clear answer as to why the agreed raises in 2022 were never implemented by the previous Labour administration. Modest year on year increases would have saved all of this trouble.”

“This is one example of many as to why the city’s finances as a whole are in such poor shape, as we are increasingly discovering. And yet, we have had no apology from Labour for their utter financial mismanagement.”

Last week, Tony Dyer, Leader of Bristol City Council, announced that the council is £22m in deficit due to overspend. Greens blamed an unrealistic budget being set by the Mayor.

Considering this, the Greens on the Public Health and Communities Committee recognise that allotment fees must increase to take away pressure from other areas of council finances, but less than the disproportionate sudden increase proposed by the previous administration.

Currently, the allotment service from the council is subsidised with money from the parks department. [2] Because national rules means that the Council must give a year’s notice before any rise in fees is implemented, so no rises will come into place until autumn 2025 at the earliest.

Cllr Hance, continued “Regardless of the decision made here today, if the new Labour government pursues austerity and does not hand local authorities a lifeline, both the parks budget and the city’s budgets will slide further into deficit than they already are.”

Speaking on the way in which the decision was reached at the committee meeting, Cllr Cara Lavan, who also sits on the Public Health and Communities Committee, said, “While I agree that there needs to be a better way for Councillors to shape proposals and make amendments, I am confused as to why the Labour Vice-Chair of this committee has called today a ‘constitutional crisis’ when she has had more than enough time to change the papers in meetings with officers.”

“Greens on this committee were only given sight of the papers on allotment rents one week before the meeting and have been working tirelessly on a way forward. I welcome the decision to defer these rent rises to work with officers and allotment holders on more palatable proposals.”

Notes:

1. The Committee Model Working Group is set to reconvene later this year to conduct a review into the committee model governance structure.
2. Allotments rents currently do not fully subsidise the allotment service. The new full proposal that was deferred would have raised an extra £206,000 a year, raising the total revenue from £263,000 to £469,000. This is still short of the £221,000 needed for operating the service, which would still have to have come from the parks service.