1

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

12 FEBRAURY 2014

UPDATE SHEET

Correspondence received and matters arising following preparation of the agenda

Item A1 WA/2013/1728 Allotmore, Wood Farm, Portsmouth Road, Godalming Additional comments from the applicant/agent

The applicant has submitted information (attached) addressing some of the points raised at the previous committee meeting, the key points from this information are:

PMLG does not own the field, it represents a portion of the people scammed (10-

15%), none of these plots are on land used for allotments The trustee who owns the allotments land is aware of the use of the land, and has

not asked the applicants to leave, the use of the land is not therefore trespass There have been previous attempts to contact plot holders Contact has been made with Mr Duggan and applicants are bidding to purchase the

allotments land Owners have public liability insurance The scheme is of great benefit to the local community Application is for a 5 year period to allow land ownership issues to be resolved

Revised Recommendation The additional comments do not change the recommendation, which remains as set out on page 19 of the agenda.

Allotmore Planning Application - WA/2013/1728Further Information for Councillors – Addressing some of the points raised in the planning meeting.

We were very happy to hear the generally positive response to our planning application and that

many councillors agreed that there are very special circumstances and that our clubhouse should be

allowed to remain, but we understand reason for deferral and hope the response from the lawyers

will have allayed any fears Councillors may have had.

In the meantime, a number of points were raised by the committee and other speakers and although

some of them are not planning issues we feel the points needed clarification.

We have tried to address the points raised as clearly as possible, but would be more than happy to

answer any further questions you might have.

There has been one other important development; after the last planning meeting we approached

Mr Duggan (the man speaking on behalf of the objectors) in person and are pleased to have started

some talks with him. Though he is not currently the owner of the land, and we are both attempting to

purchase the land; should our bid for the land fail and his be successful we would need to come to a

tenancy arrangement to continue.

It’s important we reiterate this point: At this time, PLMG Ltd. (Mr Duggan’s Company) does not own

the field, he represents a portion of the people scammed and is trying to reassemble the land into

one legal unit. The trustee in bankruptcy, who effectively does own it, is aware of our use - we shall

cover this is more detail below.

This document has 3 sections:

Responses to Objector’s Comments

Temporary Planning Permission

and The Real Cost of Council Allotments

Responses to Objector’s CommentsWe understand the legality of this matter is a worry to councillors and acknowledge that some of the

worries stem from the objector (Mr M Duggan)’s speech. We have transcribed the speech from the

online recording of the session and have addressed points we felt were misleading or simply

incorrect below the relevant paragraphs.

M Duggan: “This planning application is for a club house for the allotmore business

that is situated on a field joining Wood Farm.

Wood Farm is owned by Mr Frost and Miss Bellingham rents a property on it. However

Mr Frost sold the adjoining field sometime around 2004.”

Response: Chris Frost did not sell the field in 2004, he has never owned it. It was sold by Mr and Mrs

Groves to Ian McCallum in 2003 – See the Proprietorship Register below (we can supply the full title

should you wish to see it [No. SY727683]) - We understand that previously to this, it was owned by

Ladywell Convent.

Mr Duggan also refers to allotmore as a business. Most of our members do pay a membership fee

but these go to cover the costs of the set up of the site and the running costs. Please see ‘The Real

Cost of Council Allotments’ section of this document. It wasn’t set up to make profit. We left well

paid jobs to try and achieve something beneficial, financial reward was not, and is not, the driving

force.

M Duggan: “I and a number of others bought half the field from the previous owner

before he was made bankrupt in 2008 and we are now completing the purchase of the

2nd half from the trustee in bankruptcy.”

Response: The field was divided in to around 230 plots by English Land Partnership (the company Mr

McCallum was a director of). 123 were sold under 118 titles. The unsold plots together with the land

that would have been roads, public space etc was still owned by Mr McCallum plus 2 other directors

of ELP. Mr McCallum went in to bankruptcy in 2008 and his share is now controlled by the trustee in

bankruptcy, Alec Pillmoor of Baker-Tilly.

Milford Plotholders Ltd. (Mr Duggan’s company) is made up of, by his own admission, around 40% of

the 118 plot holders. He therefore represents only 10% - 15% of the field and no plots which he

represents, or in fact any sold plots overlap with allotmore members growing space, only animal use.

Perhaps even the above is generous, companies house records of Milford Plot holders Ltd. shows

only 19 shareholders:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07991723/MILFORD-PLOTHOLDERS-LIMITED/group-structure

#shareholders

The trustees are aware that we are there – We have told them on several occasions.

Both we and Mr Duggan are bidding for the McCallum share from the trustee at the moment. No deal

has yet been signed. Maps of the proposed site sold by ELP and land registry documents are

included in Appendix 1 & 2.

M Duggan: “The allotmore business was set up on the land and the club house erected

without our knowledge in 2009. Neither did the applicants seek planning approval.”

Response: Milford Plotholders Ltd. was formed in March 2012. There was, nearer the time allotmore

was set up, a previous company ‘Recovery Milford Ltd.’ (of which Mr Duggan was a director) that was

wound up in the high court following an investigation by the Companies Investigations

(http://news.bis.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=422653&NewsAreaID=2). Chris Frost did try

to get in contact with them.

The clubhouse is in the Frost's garden, not in the field.

The clubhouse is a temporary garden structure. We didn't think we required planning permission.

M Duggan: “The council enforcement notice to demolish it was served in August of last

year. It was only then did we registered owners and the trustee become aware of the

full extent of the illegal use of our land. This retrospective planning application is in

response to the council’s enforcement notice.

I confirm that since the incorporation of allotmore Ltd and the clubhouse construction

the applicants have not sort permission to use the land from we (the registered

owners) or the trustee in bankruptcy. We have granted no tenancy or licensing

agreement they have been thus illegally trespassing since 2009.”

Response: We are not currently using any land owned by the Milford Plotholders Ltd. Again; the land

used as allotments is owned by the trustee and former directors of ELP. The trustee is aware; we are

in contact with the trustee. Mr Duggan represents only 10% - 15% of the field, and no plots which he

represents, or in fact any sold plots overlap with allotments.

We were in the Surrey Ad in February of 2013 talking about making use of the scammed land - See

appendix 3.

We did receive an email from a Mr Duggan around this time last (Feb) asking if we had a plot

available for his son with special needs. We invited him to come and look at the project. He never

replied. There was no mention of him owning any land or being concerned with our use. This can also

be provided if it would be useful.

The first contact we had with (and indeed our first knowledge of) Milford Plotholders was when they

objected to our planning application in October. We have since written to each objector explaining

what allotmore is and asking them to come for a chat. We have received no replies.

M Duggan: “There are 2 points of law that the council and its legal advisers should now

consider before the final decision on this application is taken.

Firstly, we submit, that if the council grants approval then it will be complicit in the act

of trespass by the applicants.”

Response: The report from the council’s lawyers make it clear that this is not the case, but to add

further security to this point, as we understand it; as the Trustee (the legal owner) is aware of our

use of the land and has not asked us to leave; it is not trespass.

A future scenario maybe that we fail in our bid for the land held by the trustee and Mr Duggan is

successful - Mr Duggan would then be, as the new owner himself, intending to sue the council. But as

he is aware of our use (and has been for at least a year previously) the council cannot hide from him

what he knows, and therefore cannot be complicit.

Should we be unsuccessful in our bid for the land it is our intention to negotiate tenancy with whom

ever is the new owner to be able to carry on with our project.

Further to this, we have since the previous planning meeting started some talks with Mr Duggan and

made our intentions clear, that should he buy it we would like to discuss a tenancy arrangement. This

is of course the best way forward and though nothing can be arranged yet (as he doesn’t own it) we

are under the impression that he welcomes this idea.

M Duggan: “Secondly, we submit, that such a decision may incorrectly indicate that

both the clubhouse and allotment users that the allotmore business is wholly legal, that

appropriate health and safety regulations are being applied on the site and that

adequate public liability insurance has been effected.

None of these contentions is correct. The council may thus be conjoined in any legal

claims for injuries that maybe occurred on the site.”

Response: We can’t imagine that the ongoing day to day running of any activity permitted by

planning is in anyway a responsibility of the council - However in case this is true to some degree, we

respond below.

We are not sure how or why Mr Duggan has come to these conclusion. We have public liability

insurance and would be happy to provide details if required. Any school groups that visit have their

own health and safety regulations to adhere to and insurance cover, and we work with them on their

risk assessments.

We comply with Waverley trading standards, they have visited at least twice and we are registered

as a farm shop to enable us to sell a few eggs and occasional meat from the pigs to members, etc.

Further to this, Jo is first aid trained and has a food hygiene certificate, despite neither being a legal

requirement.

I would hope a positive decision would rather indicate that the councillors were pleased that the local

community had united and were making good use of a small piece of a much larger disused scrub

land. The mess was created by people who are not even in the country and certainly not part of the

local community, surely the council would want to put the land to a positive local use until the mess is

sorted out.

M Duggan: “Further we do not believe that any of the supporters of this application

including Busbridge Parish Council, the allotment users and local residents were fully

aware of the trespass before expressing their support.”

Response: We have been open and honest with the Council, allotment users and local residents

about our understanding of the land ownership issues. We have been quoted in the Surrey

advertiser on the subject over a year ago (see Appendix 3) and have even gone to our MP to see if

we could get any advice to clarify the situation further. Many of the people who support us have

known about and used the field for longer than we have.

M Duggan: “We thus submit that it is wholly inappropriate, morally wrong and potentially

illegal for the Waverly Borough Council to grant retrospective planning approval for the

club house with the full knowledge before the fact that its purpose supports an illegal

trespass. We registered owners are now taking legal advice on the actions we should take

against the trespass. we thus request that the council considers these request together

with the planning officers recommendation for rejection and rejects this application.

However if the council is minded to approve it then we submit that the decision must be

deferred until all the legal issues have been fully resolved. Thank you.”

Response: The land that is used by allotmore (except some for some animals) is the private land of

Chris Frost and a piece of land held by the trustee in bankruptcy.

If it is inappropriate and morally wrong for people to grow their own vegetables and for children to

spend time outside learning where their food comes from, then we are very worried about our

society.

English Land Partnership caused a lot of trouble and heartache with their schemes, their legacy is a

terrible mess of land ownership, and has left several fields like this one. We understand that the

plotholders were mislead into spending a lot of money and that they are angry. We are in no way

trying to scam them again or steal their land.

We hope you can see that what allotmore is achieving is something that is of great benefit to the

local community and will support our wish to continue. We need our clubhouse for that.

Temporary Planning PermissionWe feel it may have been somewhat over looked that this is an application for a 5 year temporary

permission. We hope that this time frame would be enough to resolve any land issues.

The Parish Council have also suggested as below:

This would also be acceptable.

The Real Cost of Council AllotmentsOne of the misnomers we have been fighting off at a low level since the start, but recently has

become more heavily fought topics is that we are making lots of money from our expensive

allotments, and therefore not a community project. We can see how this confusion arises. We often

hear the comment ‘£25 per month! Council allotments are only £30 per year.’

The truth is, council allotment fees are much lower, but their cost is not.

Information provided by Godalming Town Council (most of which is available on public record) has led

to the conclusions below; these are broken down into ‘Cost of Running Godalming’s Allotments’,

‘Why Does This Situation Exist?’ and ‘New Allotments for Godalming’.

Cost of Running Godalming’s Allotments to Godalming Town CouncilIn the 6 year period 2007/8 – 2012/13 Godalming Town Council received an income of £9,406 from

rents for its allotments (both directly managed and allotments leased to FADWMAA [Farncombe

Area and District Working Man’s Allotment Association]), this was against a direct expenditure of

£16,262 for the same period.

The council also has indirect costs in managing the allotments and is required by statute to have a

designated Allotments Officer. This post is part of the Town Council’s Facilities Manager’s duties and

is estimated to be about 5% of the work for this position. On a basic estimate of salary, pension

contributions and other costs associated with employment this equate to about £2,393 per annum.

Therefore this adds an additional £14,364 to the overall cost of running the allotments.

As such the total cost to Godalming Town Council for providing allotments was £30,626 over the

previous six year period against an income of £9,406, a ratio of 3.26 to 1.

Therefore, although the council allotment fees are £36.25, their cost is £118 per annum, or to put

it another way for every £1 received the Town Council expends £2.26.

Additionally, this figure does not take into account the 5-10 hours per week voluntary work by each

of the Site Stewards; work we at allotmore still have to do. Plus, and perhaps most significantly,

these figures are only maintenance figures and take no account of the creation of the sites in the first

place - This takes a substantial amount of work and is covered below.

Why Does This Situation Exist?Statutory Duty: All allotment sites owned by Godalming Town Council, whether directly managed or

leased to the FDWMAA are classified as Statuary Allotments. Therefore, Godalming Town Council has

a duty to maintain these sites for the benefit of the residents of the town. Godalming Town Council is

restricted in the percentage it can increase annual allotment charges, nor can it chose to dispose of

statutory allotment land without the permission of the Secretary of State. As the owner of the

allotment land Godalming Town Council also has a duty to ensure they are maintained in a safe and

useable condition and that its actions comply with relevant regulations, hence the need for

expenditure over and above that received from allotment rental income.

New Allotments for GodalmingAt the same time as allotmore was starting, there were plans made for new council allotments on

land donated by Ladywell Convent. Due to various issues they have not materialised but the

calculations based on estimates received at the time put the cost to the council at ~£25,000

(£16,000 of which was deer fencing) for a 1.16 acre site (4700m2). Plans were for 32 five rod plots

(~125m2 each) - Giving a set up cost of £781.25 per traditional plot. This of course is assuming it

would come in on budget and did not include any effort by the council or the volunteer groups

involved.

allotmore’s set up cost are comparable; we estimate between £15 and £20,000 - This figure does

not included any labour costs, we have taken our (and our friends and family’s) time as voluntary.

We have still yet to cover these costs, 4 years on.

Other Allotments around the CountryBelow are a few further examples of the true cost of allotments to councils, taken from information

on the web.

Edinburgh

A public consultation in Edinbugh concluded that it would cost £2.5m to introduce between 35 and

50 new sites around the city; again, not including any land costs.

Even if we assume very large allotment sites of 100 plots each, this gives between £500 and £714

per plot or £50,000 to £71,400 per site.

£90,000 for 21 Plots here comes to £4,300 per plot:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-12732605

North Hertfordshire

According to the below plan from North Hertfordshire council, £4,000 for 15 plots = £133 to add

plot within a current site (no fencing, no infrastructure), and their ratio of actual costs to fees is

3.23:1.

http://www.north-herts.gov.uk/allotments_action_plan_2010-14.pdf

Appendix 1 - Proposed Development

Appendix 2 - Title Plan

Appendix 3 - Surrey Ad. Article