West Berks Council's leaders and top officials are apparently straining at the leash to scrap a number of services that councils are currently legally obliged to provide. Eric Pickles and his Libdem coalition colleagues are keen to help him by scrapping vast numbers of these statutory obligations. For example, Pickles wants to scrap allotments as you'll see from this: http://www.independent.co.uk/l.....od-life-2277463.html
Although WBC don't control allotments themselves I'm sure they'd love to see this carried through so that they can cover prime town centre land currently devoted to allotments with nice new houses.
Presumably WBC's Conservative councillors would be keen for as much housing as possible to be built in Newbury, Thatcham and elsewhere so that they can preserve the rural areas they mostly represent.
Are their local Libdem colleagues in favour of scrapping allotments as well or is their opinion on this, as on so much else, irrelevant given that all the decisions that matter are made by their doomed party leader and his colleagues in Westminter?
A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: "The Government is reviewing old and unnecessary duties imposed on councils in order to free them up from Whitehall red tape and as part of this we have published the list of duties, including on allotments. However, we will not remove statutory protections for allotments or vital frontline services."
A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: "The Government is reviewing old and unnecessary duties imposed on councils in order to free them up from Whitehall red tape and as part of this we have published the list of duties, including on allotments. However, we will not remove statutory protections for allotments or vital frontline services."
Just like Cameron stated before the election "The NHS does not need any more reorganisation"
What they think is academic, given (as you point out) Town and Parish councils are tasked with looking after allotments.
Only until they say differently. Think of the Tory developers dribbling and slavering over the prime sites of some of the allotments and it puts the Victoria Park development into the shade. If they think they can get away with it (think we have to deal with the deficit excuse) they will.
Quite! It's difficult to know where to begin with the idea that the coalition government says it will 'not remove statutory protections for allotments and front line services'. Sounds like yet another application of the 'tell a bigger lie' approach to public relations recommended by you know who.
Clearly the fact that a service has a 'statutory protection' doesn't mean that it can't be cut to the absolute bone. Do the 'statutory protections' specify a minimum number/size of allotment that must be provided? My guess is 'probably not'. Could NTC dish out half a dozen window box sized allotments and meet the requirements? If not, what is the minimum?
I must admit that personally I can't see the point of allotments at all when we have perfectly serviceable supermarkets and the excellent Fishers to provide our every fruit and veg need. I for one would much rather we built on them than on our wonderful West Berkshire countryside. Who, apart from the few 'Good Lifers' mentioned in the original article, could possibly object?
I'm with Eric Pickles and his Libdem colleagues on this one. Stop this nonsense. Perhaps allotments made sense in the 15th century or when the government was urging everyone to Dig for Britain, but not now surely? Why build on Sandleford Park when we could build on wasted allotment space instead?
Just think, as Mr Carter and his colleagues must, of the rateable income of the 5 bed neo-Georgian homes that could fill the wasted space on these sites: http://www.newbury.gov.uk/allotments.htm
I must admit that personally I can't see the point of allotments at all when we have perfectly serviceable supermarkets and the excellent Fishers to provide our every fruit and veg need. I for one would much rather we built on them than on our wonderful West Berkshire countryside. Who, apart from the few 'Good Lifers' mentioned in the original article, could possibly object?
Allotments are a part of the countryside, green sites which provide fresh produce, exercise, a community spirit and much more...spose you think supermarket stuff is fresh...WHAT! You cannot be serious man... anyway, carry on living out of a tin if you must! Perhaps you should let em build affordable houses on your lawn!
Perhaps you should let em build affordable houses on your lawn!
HAHAHAHAHA! Good joke. No, I'm with Mr Jones the Chemist and his friends. Unaffordable housing should be given an absolute priority: that's where the big bucks are to be made, council tax wise. Let's be honest - the vast majority of allotment holders aren't very well off so their views don't really count.
A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: "The Government is reviewing old and unnecessary duties imposed on councils in order to free them up from Whitehall red tape and as part of this we have published the list of duties, including on allotments. However, we will not remove statutory protections for allotments or vital frontline services."
They could keep statutory protections - thus protecting existing allotments - while removing the obligation to provide any more allotments.
HAHAHAHAHA! Good joke. No, I'm with Mr Jones the Chemist and his friends. Unaffordable housing should be given an absolute priority: that's where the big bucks are to be made, council tax wise. Let's be honest - the vast majority of allotment holders aren't very well off so their views don't really count.
Blimey..you are some cookie! There to be shot down, twa_! you'll learn.... so you think you have to be well off to have an opinion...I think not I realise you can not be serious about your comments and you are there to wind people up..So I won't completely bite! Hope I don't meet you in the street though! nob jockey
Blimey..you are some cookie! There to be shot down, twa_! you'll learn.... so you think you have to be well off to have an opinion...I think not I realise you can not be serious about your comments and you are there to wind people up..So I won't completely bite! Hope I don't meet you in the street though! nob jockey
Wow, I didn't see that coming! It's wonderful stuff and I'm literally laughing out loud here, but what on earth has got to the poor old thing? My first reaction was that he'd just staggered back from the pub and was replying to the wrong thread. Can anyone really feel that strongly about allotments?
You know what? I think we've had our suspicions all along but this confirms it. The deliberately warped logic, grammar and spelling is just a cover. I think it's obvious that 'Dodgy' is, as we've all suspected for some time, Osama Bin Laden! Sorry, I mean:
Blimey Nobtree...couldn't you sleep? In answer to your question...yes I do..the rest is bolloc-s, as you may well know(or not) You have my sympathy (bugger, nearly missed off the full stop..anyway here it is).
Just read back through the thread and I realise that Dodgy's invective and threats of violence must have been prompted by a misreading of one of my posts. Clearly the poor old thing doesn't recognise irony when he comes across it. I blame the schools.
Just read back through the thread and I realise that Dodgy's invective and threats of violence must have been prompted by a misreading of one of my posts. Clearly the poor old thing doesn't recognise irony when he comes across it. I blame the schools.
Yes, the old fashioned 'fight first; ask questions later' mob! Perhaps also you might be better using words like 'only joking' as a substitute for 'irony'; it is easier for some people to understand.
Just read back through the thread and I realise that Dodgy's invective and threats of violence must have been prompted by a misreading of one of my posts. Clearly the poor old thing doesn't recognise irony when he comes across it. I blame the schools.
Logged
Male
