After finding the Review of Charges for Allotments Document on the Councils website, I thought it appropriate to see if there were any other documents there relating to the Rent increase proposal.
I did find such a document titled ES4—Increase Allotment Charges
Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment.
dated 12th November 2008
For the reasons stated below we have concluded that this equality and impact test should have failed for the following reasons :-
a) because it fails the proportionality test,
b) because there is no legal basis for the proposed rent increase in domestic law.
c) the stated aim of the procedure will not be met by it’s implementation.
Reasons
On Page 3 of – Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment at item 9, it states the main beneficiaries are the Council and allotment holders who currently pay for water supplies. The service is currently subsidised by the Council and water charges are not uniformly distributed. It goes on to say that the function of the policy or procedure is intended to redress the disadvantage faced by some allotment holders who are currently charged for water supply, whilst others are not.
If the proposal receives the approval of Councillors, all tenants will pay the same allotment charges pro rata but those who do not have a water supply will be paying the same as those who do. In other words, water charges will not be uniformly distributed amongst those who have a water supply, yet the stated objective of the proposal is to obtain uniform distribution of water charges.
On that page it also states that 366 allotments are supplied with water, but only 130 are charged for that water. Surely, the remedy is to charge the 236 allotment holders who at present are not charged with the set water charge of £1.05 instead of charging 214 full plot holders an extra £20 irrespective of whether or not they have a water supply.
On the same page at Item 11. It states Could have a negative impact because of possible negative perception of the Council raising charges and it may cause friction between those who currently pay for water and those who do not. We agree there will be a negative perception simply because the Council has already imposed an 80% increase for all allotment holders.
However if there is likely to be any friction in the event of this proposal being passed, it won’t be because some allotment holders do have a water supply and are not being charged for it. It will be because some allotment holders do not have a water supply and are being charged for it.
On page 7 at item 16 the question is asked ‘where there is potential negative impact is there a legal basis in the relevant domestic law?’ The answer given is ‘Not Applicable’ Surely that should read No there is no legal basis as the matter is governed by the Allotments legislation and the proposal does not fall within the criteria set out in the Allotmentslegislation.
On page 7 at item 18 under the heading Proportionality, the question is asked ‘Is the impact of the policy proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued. Is it the minimum necessary interference to achieve the legitimate aim?’
The answer given is Yes.
However we think the answer should be No.
Charging 214 full plot holders £20 irrespective of whether they have a water supply or not is not proportionate. Proportionate would be to charge the 236 tenants who have a water supply but do not presently pay£1.05 per annum as others with a water supply presently pay.
Spelling that out in plain terms. It is not proportionate to charge allotment holders over £4000 to achieve the aim when the aim could be achieved by charging allotment holders less than £250.00. This in a background of the last published figures available to us for expenditure on allotment water services showing a total of only £1377 and that figure undoubtedly is inclusive of the cost of standing charges as well as the cost of water consumed. The differentiation between standing charges and the cost of water consumed is deliberately highlighted.
Councillors are asked to read our comments in conjunction with the Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment Document which can be found on the Council’s website http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=20266&sID=8510.
We will be very surprised if you reach differing conclusions.
Frank Taylor
(Acting Secretary)
Bucksburn Allotments Association