Share this post:
The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has come out swinging against concern over the UK Labour government’s approval of allotment sell-offs – but it isn’t very convincing.
The MHCLG (to give it its usual abbreviation) has accused the media of misleading the public (my metaphorical ears are burning) – and is insisting that nothing has changed.
That is no comfort.
To recap: Communities Minister Angela Rayner has approved the sale of land at eight allotment sites across England — a decision that has sparked backlash from campaigners and community growers.
Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong allotment-holder and former Labour leader, has strongly criticised the move, warning it threatens vital green spaces and undermines the historic right of ordinary people to grow their own food.
Writing in The Telegraph, he accused the government of “sacrificing” community assets and called for social housing to be built without encroaching on allotments.
In a formal statement, the Ministry’s spokesperson said:
“Allotments are a valuable and important community resource, and there are strict criteria in place to protect them… Councils have been able to sell assets since 2016 and these rules have not changed.”
According to the MHCLG, the eight allotment sites approved for disposal in 2024 actually represent a slight decrease from previous years.
They department’s representatives cite the fact that ministerial consents were higher in 2020 and 2022 as proof that allotments are not under attack.
The National Allotment Society (NAS) also weighed in — seemingly to calm the waters:
“There has been no change to the legal protections that apply to statutory allotments… No statutory site can be sold or developed without going through a clearly defined legal process.”
And in the case of Elstree & Borehamwood, where 54 plots are being removed to make way for housing, the Ministry insists it’s a fair deal — pointing out that 100 replacement plots will be created nearby, and that 80 per cent of the homes being built are affordable.
So, what’s the problem? Isn’t this all above board?
Not quite.
A legal process doesn’t equal justice
Nobody is claiming that these sales are being conducted illegally.
The criticism is more fundamental — it’s about priorities, precedent, and the erosion of public green space by stealth.
Yes, there is a legal process. But legal processes can be manipulated.
We have seen it before, most notably in the sell-off of school playing fields under the Coalition government.
Then, too, ministers claimed that safeguards were in place — and yet hundreds of fields were approved for sale, often to developers, despite vocal opposition from schools and communities.
What those cases demonstrated — and what is at stake again now — is that criteria can be met without public interest truly being served.
Key problems with the government’s defence
🔹 “The rules haven’t changed” – so what?
The rules may not have changed, but the political climate has.
This is a Labour government, with a public mandate to restore public services, tackle inequality, and invest in communities.
Saying “we’re just doing what the Tories did” is not a defence — it’s a confession of continuity.
If allotment disposals were wrong under the Conservatives, they don’t magically become right just because Labour rubber-stamps them.
🔹 “Only eight sites” – but that’s not the point
Eight sites might sound insignificant — until you consider that 100,000 people are on allotment waiting lists across the UK.
Many wait decades for a plot.
In that context, every loss matters — particularly when what’s being lost is not easily replaced.
And while MHCLG claims some plots are being re-provided, there is no guarantee that these replacements will be:
🔹 “Strict criteria exist” – but they’re not transparent
What does “clearly necessary” mean? What does “value for money” look like in this context?
These phrases are vague enough to be politically convenient — and functionally meaningless without full transparency.
Communities rarely get full details of disposals until after the fact, and decisions are made at ministerial discretion, behind closed doors.
🔹 Private sites are still at risk
Even the National Allotment Society’s carefully worded statement points to a larger systemic problem — that many UK allotment sites have no statutory protection at all.
This is the untold story: while the government defends its legal processes for protected sites, it has done nothing to extend protections to the growing number of vulnerable, non-statutory plots.
If anything, the current situation highlights the need for expanded legal safeguards — not complacent reassurances.
The real issue: trust
If this all feels familiar, it’s because we’ve seen it before.
Ministers make technical defences while ignoring the spirit of public outcry.
They point to legal frameworks while failing to address public values — like the right to grow food, to enjoy green space, to build community, and to resist creeping privatisation.
So when Jeremy Corbyn warns of a “battle for the grass roots,” he’s not being melodramatic.
He’s speaking to a growing unease — that once again, the spaces that matter most to ordinary people are being chipped away under cover of bureaucracy.
It’s not about process. It’s about power
Allotments aren’t just about vegetables — they’re about who gets to use land, and who decides what it’s for.
That’s why the government’s defence doesn’t wash.
While spokespeople talk about rules, the public is asking about priorities.
Right now, it’s clear this government isn’t on the side of the growers — it’s on the side of the sellers.
Share this post:
Ministry of Denial: government assurances on allotments can’t be trusted
Share this post:
The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has come out swinging against concern over the UK Labour government’s approval of allotment sell-offs – but it isn’t very convincing.
The MHCLG (to give it its usual abbreviation) has accused the media of misleading the public (my metaphorical ears are burning) – and is insisting that nothing has changed.
That is no comfort.
To recap: Communities Minister Angela Rayner has approved the sale of land at eight allotment sites across England — a decision that has sparked backlash from campaigners and community growers.
Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong allotment-holder and former Labour leader, has strongly criticised the move, warning it threatens vital green spaces and undermines the historic right of ordinary people to grow their own food.
Writing in The Telegraph, he accused the government of “sacrificing” community assets and called for social housing to be built without encroaching on allotments.
In a formal statement, the Ministry’s spokesperson said:
According to the MHCLG, the eight allotment sites approved for disposal in 2024 actually represent a slight decrease from previous years.
They department’s representatives cite the fact that ministerial consents were higher in 2020 and 2022 as proof that allotments are not under attack.
The National Allotment Society (NAS) also weighed in — seemingly to calm the waters:
And in the case of Elstree & Borehamwood, where 54 plots are being removed to make way for housing, the Ministry insists it’s a fair deal — pointing out that 100 replacement plots will be created nearby, and that 80 per cent of the homes being built are affordable.
So, what’s the problem? Isn’t this all above board?
Not quite.
A legal process doesn’t equal justice
Nobody is claiming that these sales are being conducted illegally.
The criticism is more fundamental — it’s about priorities, precedent, and the erosion of public green space by stealth.
Yes, there is a legal process. But legal processes can be manipulated.
We have seen it before, most notably in the sell-off of school playing fields under the Coalition government.
Then, too, ministers claimed that safeguards were in place — and yet hundreds of fields were approved for sale, often to developers, despite vocal opposition from schools and communities.
What those cases demonstrated — and what is at stake again now — is that criteria can be met without public interest truly being served.
Key problems with the government’s defence
🔹 “The rules haven’t changed” – so what?
The rules may not have changed, but the political climate has.
This is a Labour government, with a public mandate to restore public services, tackle inequality, and invest in communities.
Saying “we’re just doing what the Tories did” is not a defence — it’s a confession of continuity.
If allotment disposals were wrong under the Conservatives, they don’t magically become right just because Labour rubber-stamps them.
🔹 “Only eight sites” – but that’s not the point
Eight sites might sound insignificant — until you consider that 100,000 people are on allotment waiting lists across the UK.
Many wait decades for a plot.
In that context, every loss matters — particularly when what’s being lost is not easily replaced.
And while MHCLG claims some plots are being re-provided, there is no guarantee that these replacements will be:
As accessible
Equally well-serviced
Or even statutory, meaning they may not be legally protected at all
🔹 “Strict criteria exist” – but they’re not transparent
What does “clearly necessary” mean? What does “value for money” look like in this context?
These phrases are vague enough to be politically convenient — and functionally meaningless without full transparency.
Communities rarely get full details of disposals until after the fact, and decisions are made at ministerial discretion, behind closed doors.
🔹 Private sites are still at risk
Even the National Allotment Society’s carefully worded statement points to a larger systemic problem — that many UK allotment sites have no statutory protection at all.
This is the untold story: while the government defends its legal processes for protected sites, it has done nothing to extend protections to the growing number of vulnerable, non-statutory plots.
If anything, the current situation highlights the need for expanded legal safeguards — not complacent reassurances.
The real issue: trust
If this all feels familiar, it’s because we’ve seen it before.
Ministers make technical defences while ignoring the spirit of public outcry.
They point to legal frameworks while failing to address public values — like the right to grow food, to enjoy green space, to build community, and to resist creeping privatisation.
So when Jeremy Corbyn warns of a “battle for the grass roots,” he’s not being melodramatic.
He’s speaking to a growing unease — that once again, the spaces that matter most to ordinary people are being chipped away under cover of bureaucracy.
It’s not about process. It’s about power
Allotments aren’t just about vegetables — they’re about who gets to use land, and who decides what it’s for.
That’s why the government’s defence doesn’t wash.
While spokespeople talk about rules, the public is asking about priorities.
Right now, it’s clear this government isn’t on the side of the growers — it’s on the side of the sellers.
Share this post:
you might also like
‘The battle for the grass roots is on’: Corbyn slams Labour over allotment sales