Allotments - who won?

The Independent on Sunday is today claiming victory in its campaign to save allotments, following the inclusion of Section 23 of the 1908 Smallholdings and Allotments Act in a review of duties imposed on local authorities by central government (the consultation on which ran from 7 March 2011 to 25 April 2011). Section 23 obliges ‘allotment authorities’ (eg parish or district councils) to ‘provide a sufficient number of allotments and let them to persons resident in the area (where they are of the opinion that there is a demand)’.

The Independent on Sunday first raised the story on 1 May 2011, claiming that “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”. It was a good non-Royal Wedding story to run, and was clearly trying to rekindle memories of the Save our Forests campaign from earlier in the year.

It was somewhat unclear what would be achieved by launching a public campaign in the week after a Government consultation had closed. Nevertheless, CLG responded robustly with a statement saying that the story was “simply untrue”:

“we will not remove statutory protections for allotments or any frontline services. However 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 full list of duties which includes allotments."

The Dig for Victory campaign nonetheless clearly resounded with politicians. It was raised at Prime Minister’s questions on 4 May 2011, eliciting the following response from David Cameron:

Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): More than 100 years ago, Parliament legislated to make sure that local authorities provided allotments. Healthy local food is a very good part of good British values. Why therefore are the Prime Minister’s Government scrapping the obligation on local authorities to provide allotments?

The Prime Minister: I was as concerned as the hon. Gentleman when I read that report. I immediately checked, and found that that is not the case. It is extremely important that allotments are made available. Many Members will find that when they ask about that in their constituencies there are massive queues for allotments, as many people want to grow their own vegetables and food and understand more about where food comes from. It is a great movement, and it has my full support.

CLG claimed further credit later in the week, when it released data showing that 50,000 allotment sites had been sold by local authorities in the period 1996-2006. It allied the release of the data with a reminder that under the proposed powers in the Localism Bill, local people would be able to make their own decisions on land use, including the right to designate areas for use as allotments.

What can we learn from this episode? Unlike with the forests, here is a situation where both sides are claiming victory, and with some justification. Section 23 of the 1908 act looks like it will remain intact, but at the same time the Government has had an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to growing your own. Indeed, Eric Pickles took to Twitter to claim that in fact “Govt wants to increase the number of allotments”. How it will do this without imposing the sort of regulatory obligations that at the same time it wants to remove is not clear.

However, I note that the original consultation that gave rise to the IoS story also included the following obligations on local authorities from the 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings etc) Act:

• [to] Determine from time to time, which parts of its area should be conservation areas.

• Publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas.

• Exercise certain functions paying special attention to the desirability of enhancing or preserving the appearance of conservation areas

• In considering whether to grant planning permission affecting a listed building or its setting, have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting

The idea of Government abolishing conservation areas seems, to me, an even bigger threat than that of the loss of allotments. No such threat yet exists of course, but the devil is always in the detail, and we have yet to see the draft of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

In the meantime, is it possible to conclude that threats to 'green' things will always take a priority in the minds of journalists to threats to 'brown' things (eg heritage)?