Decision details

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.