Share this post:
Almost two weeks ago, I reported on Jeremy Corbyn’s attack on Angela Rayner’s decision to approve the sale of land at eight allotment sites since the general election.
Corbyn warned that such moves could put the future of community growing spaces “in peril” at a time when demand for plots is at record levels.
Now, a piece in CapX has tried to calm the waters, suggesting there is nothing for allotment-holders to worry about.
Having read it carefully, I don’t believe it changes the substance of my position – and I doubt it would change Mr Corbyn’s either.
The CapX article dismisses the Telegraph story that triggered Corbyn’s intervention as “silly season mischief-making.”
It argues that allotments still enjoy strong legal protections, that some of the sites involved were already disused, and that in at least one case – in Storrington, West Sussex – more allotments will be provided once development goes ahead.
It also points out that the National Allotment Society itself is not “worked up” about the issue.
On the surface, this sounds reassuring. But it ignores the wider realities.
Those legal protections only extend to statutory allotments; many sites across the country are privately managed or non-statutory, and therefore remain vulnerable.
The suggestion that “disused” sites don’t matter also misses the point. With more than 100,000 people languishing on allotment waiting lists, allowing land to slip into neglect rather than restoring it is a political choice – and one that serves developers, not communities.
Even the promise of replacement plots is not the guarantee it seems. In Storrington, developers are required to provide more allotments than they take away, but experience tells us that replacement schemes often fail to live up to the hype.
A new site cannot instantly recreate the community bonds and traditions built up around existing ones, and in too many cases the “replacements” are harder to reach, poorly serviced, or simply not protected in the same way.
Most importantly, what matters is not just the technicalities of each case, but the pattern they create. Eight sites approved since the election may not sound like many, but in the context of decades of sell-offs – from school playing fields to public libraries – every disposal carries symbolic weight.
Each one reinforces the perception that public green space is expendable, and that the right to grow your own food is secondary to the drive for new development.
CapX wants us to see this as a storm in a teacup. But allotment holders and campaigners know better.
They have lived through broken promises before, and they know how easily “assurances” from ministers can evaporate.
That is why Jeremy Corbyn was right to sound the alarm – and why I stand by my earlier report.
Share this post:
Website defends Angela Rayner’s allotment sell-offs – but is it right to?
Share this post:
Almost two weeks ago, I reported on Jeremy Corbyn’s attack on Angela Rayner’s decision to approve the sale of land at eight allotment sites since the general election.
Corbyn warned that such moves could put the future of community growing spaces “in peril” at a time when demand for plots is at record levels.
Now, a piece in CapX has tried to calm the waters, suggesting there is nothing for allotment-holders to worry about.
Having read it carefully, I don’t believe it changes the substance of my position – and I doubt it would change Mr Corbyn’s either.
The CapX article dismisses the Telegraph story that triggered Corbyn’s intervention as “silly season mischief-making.”
It argues that allotments still enjoy strong legal protections, that some of the sites involved were already disused, and that in at least one case – in Storrington, West Sussex – more allotments will be provided once development goes ahead.
It also points out that the National Allotment Society itself is not “worked up” about the issue.
On the surface, this sounds reassuring. But it ignores the wider realities.
Those legal protections only extend to statutory allotments; many sites across the country are privately managed or non-statutory, and therefore remain vulnerable.
The suggestion that “disused” sites don’t matter also misses the point. With more than 100,000 people languishing on allotment waiting lists, allowing land to slip into neglect rather than restoring it is a political choice – and one that serves developers, not communities.
Even the promise of replacement plots is not the guarantee it seems. In Storrington, developers are required to provide more allotments than they take away, but experience tells us that replacement schemes often fail to live up to the hype.
A new site cannot instantly recreate the community bonds and traditions built up around existing ones, and in too many cases the “replacements” are harder to reach, poorly serviced, or simply not protected in the same way.
Most importantly, what matters is not just the technicalities of each case, but the pattern they create. Eight sites approved since the election may not sound like many, but in the context of decades of sell-offs – from school playing fields to public libraries – every disposal carries symbolic weight.
Each one reinforces the perception that public green space is expendable, and that the right to grow your own food is secondary to the drive for new development.
CapX wants us to see this as a storm in a teacup. But allotment holders and campaigners know better.
They have lived through broken promises before, and they know how easily “assurances” from ministers can evaporate.
That is why Jeremy Corbyn was right to sound the alarm – and why I stand by my earlier report.
Share this post:
you might also like
‘The battle for the grass roots is on’: Corbyn slams Labour over allotment sales
Ministry of Denial: government assurances on allotments can’t be trusted