Content

9.1

The Service
Manager for Parks and Countryside accompanied by the Head of Parks
and Countryside introduced the report which sought approval for an
increase in the allotment rent and water charges for 2025/2026 of
5.96% (an increase below current inflation).

9.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Communities, Parks and Leisure
Policy Committee:-

1.    
Approve a 5.96% increase to allotment rents for
2025/26.

9.3

Reasons for Decision

9.3.1

The
recommendation to increase the rents by 5.96% in 2025/26, whilst
below inflation, protects the staffing levels within the team and
maintains a small (and slightly reduced) site improvement budget.
It takes in to account the results of the consultation and is in
line with the proposal set out to tenants within the consultation
(i.e., that we would apply the average (mean) ‘suggested %
increase’ to the survey results).
 
The proposal
entails increasing rent by a relatively small proportion. The
survey indicates a favourable response to a rent increase within a
Set of % parameters and methodology using the mathematical mean
therefore we feel that the proposed increase is
reasonable.
 
It has been
stated before that our rents are among the most expensive in the
country. Direct comparisons with other authorities can be
misleading, as there are many differences in how allotments are
categorised and priced, the concessions available, and how the
service is delivered. Our 75% discount for those on a low income or
with disabilities is generous compared to other authorities: most
offer lower discounts, or no discount at all. We feel that the
large discount is fair, as it makes allotments more affordable for
those who might struggle most otherwise. We are unusual in that
all of our sites are directly managed by
us, with no self-management (other than Rodney Hill’s
management of their own water supply). Self-management can be a way
to keep rents lower since some of the management of sites is done
by volunteers. Previously discussions at the Allotment Advisory
Group have indicated a willingness to explore self-management
models. 11his does not apply to all societies and the exact model
is something which will be explored further with the group.
However, any savings will be in the longer term.
 
We have sought
to compare the rents to rental charges for agricultural land owned
by the Council (although the two things are very different, since
allotment holders receive different services and facilities).
However, information for comparison was not available since charges
and reviews of charges for agricultural land depend on specific
agreements

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

9.4.1

Rents could
remain at 2024/25 levels for an additional year. However,
particularly when following a year of below-inflationary rent
increases, this would represent a significant reduction to the
budget for the service. This option was rejected as the proposal
would significantly decrease the level of service and site
improvements that can be undertaken.
 

9.4.2

Rents could be
increased by inflation (6.7% at the time of the consultation).
However, during this time of ongoing cost of living crisis it was
felt that tenants should be consulted on this option. This option
was rejected as it was felt that consultation was required.
Following the results of the consultation it was acknowledged that
this proposal was not in line with the results of the survey nor
the confirmation in the survey that we would calculate rent
increase by applying the average (mean) ‘suggested %
increase’ to the survey results.
 

9.4.3

Rents could be
increased by an amount greater than inflation. However, during this
time of ongoing cost of living crisis it was felt that tenants
should be consulted on this option. Following the results of the
consultation it was acknowledged that this proposal was not in line
with the results of the survey nor the confirmation in the survey
that we would calculate rent increase by applying the average
(mean) ‘suggested % increase’ to the survey results.
larger amount, but this would go against the outcomes of the
consultation.