THIS site charts our fight to protect historic Skimmingdish Allotments at Launton near Bicester in Oxfordshire. They are one of the oldest allotment sites in the country, but the Church of England, after supporting them for 160 years, now wants to build offices on them - we object!

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005: Cherwell District Council voted to reject the church's planning application. Unanimously. How many years' worth of vicars' wages have been spent on this so far?
This website seems to have upset at least one councillor (the first person that I am aware of to have taken offence.)
It was not our intention to upset any particular religious group, or any group.
But we do think it ironic that the most environmentally friendly (allegedly) diocese in the country takes on faith (!) the word of their highly paid advisors, even when the rest of the community (or flock or potential flock) is opposing the church's position.
As far as I am aware this site does not say the Church Of England should not have investments - the sentiment we espouse is that their investments should take into account the view of the community.
We do believe that the church - which espouses environmental concern, the use of fair trade goods, etc - should not invest in practises which are in potential conflict with those opinions.
The Oxford Diocese was one of the first to oppose investment in apartheid (against the broad opinion of the rest of the C of E at the time we have been told). This is a position we would and do wholeheartedly applaud and support.
If only the diocese were to be so forward thinking in relation to its relationship with the local environment (ie, in relation to bulldozing allotments.)
I make no apology for my joshing of the Christian faith's claim one side to be environmentally friendly and on the other to want to bulldoze allotments.

THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANS.

Some of my best friends are Christians!
There are email links and phone numbers to call if you take issue with our sentiment - so far we have that Christians (who tell us of their faith - we have no prejudice and seek support from any faith!) are very supportive of our stance)
the reasons for refusal by Cherwell are basically as set out on the council website
http://www.cherwell-dc.gov.uk/yourcouncil/meetings.cfm/meetingdetail/75/946/
www.cherwell-dc.gov.uk/yourcouncil/meetings.cfm/meetingdetail/75/946/
The district council meeting noted that we have the backing of the parish council, Bicester Town Council (one of their few unanimous decisions, according to one councillor!), the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth, Monty Don (TV gardener), Cleve West (Independent columnist), academics such as Jeremy Burchardt (who says it is the second oldest surviving site in the country) as well as our MP Tony Baldry and MEP Caroline Lucas, and of course, hundreds of local people.
Sadly the environmentally friendly Diocese of Oxford say they need the money, and must develop our site...

They are very hard up, check out: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=247954
it shows their income over the past few years.
Skimmingdish Lane allotments are one of the oldest surviving in Britain. They are outside the Bicester ring road and partly on the flood plain, speculative office development and against the wishes of the local people, many of whom want an allotment (Bicester Town Council waiting list: 24. we have 30+ on our unofficial waiting list that mainly includes Glory Farm estate - previously part of Launton - and Launton itself). But the church persists, under guidance by its professional advisors, to want to develop it.

This website rants on a bit, and I'm sorry about that, but we think the Church Of England should continue to support the allotments, as they have done so for the past 166 years, and unless they (the church) are no longer charitable, we cannot understand why they don't want to continue their Christian charitable actions.
'Dig the earth' - Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
'Join an allotment association' - Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford
-both quotes from earlier this year, the Archbishop in a book on the Kyoto Agreement, and the bishop in his sermon on Ascension Day.
Well thanks, your graces, but sadly it seems The diocese of Oxford is intent on destroying the allotment we wish to work on. What a lovely legacy from an outgoing bishop who claims to be keen on the environment


Skimmingdish Lane allotments are allegedly owned by the church*, and have undoubtedly been charitably run by them for 166 years, the Diocese Of Oxford now wants to concrete them over and turn them into office and business units - even though it is contrary to district council planning policy; they are outside the ring road; and they are not on the current local plan for development.

(*The land is not registered with the Land Registry. Presumably somewhere the church can prove there are title documents to prove the land belongs to the church, and that they don't have a restrictive 'for the good of the village of Launton' covenant on it.)

However, the church is, on advice from its legal and planning people, preparing its case based on the 1996 local plan for Cherwell. This is indeed the last local plan that was made law, but the council is several local plans down the line since then.
If only the church's land agents had actually moved faster and got this underway before public opinion and council policies made it unworkable. Development in Bicester is now scheduled to be on the other side of town ... ruining the image that employment on the site would be provided by people living in the new housing that was hoped to be built on RAF Bicester.
Like the rest of the country Cherwell's local plan is being replaced by a local development framework (LDF) ... so if the church is right here then councils all over the country should be watching their back in case developers come to them saying 'forget the LDF you are working on, in the last local plan it said we could do this, so let us do it, or else'.

Saying the nine-year-old plan is the primary legal document, and the subsequent plans don't count is like saying the old testament is the primary document in christianity and everything that has been written since is heresy. So an eye for an eye etc...

Now the church has finished with threatening us (see letter below), they are getting set for a legal battle if the authority has the temerity to stick by its guns and say the land is not zoned.

Bless their christian hearts.
They also claim it is the charity commission's fault, cos the charity commission insists they get the most from their land. If that is the black and white case of it then why don't they sell Christ Church Cathedral then? It is in the middle of Oxford where land prices are at a premium.

Can the local authority take on an uncertain legal battle against an adversary that is not accountable (except perhaps to God).
Do the church's ethically minded environmentally friendly land agents think that might sway the authority decision?
If the authority do decide not to fight the church's claim, does that then mean all the local plans since '96 are invalid?
Does that then mean RAF Bicester gets built on, and all sorts of other development goes ahead that was rejected by Cherwell?

We'll have to wait and see. Wait and see if the Church of England (Oxford branch) decides to fight Cherwell, and if Cherwell fights back. Who will turn the other cheek first?

It's a shame that they plead poverty yet throw money at their professional advisors who then cherry pick local plan details, as they suit them, to make their case.
Shame they don't throw money at some of the rank and file vicars who can face a difficult parish - thanks to the workings of head office.
It's also a shame that they waffle on about being a fair trade diocese and can't help people on their own doorstep.
And it's a shame that the vicar of Launton and Bicester won't come down on the side of their parishioners or potential parishioners ... or perhaps they are afraid of being transferred to a less salubrious patch?
We ended up with 177 objections in writing to planning permission that would get rid of the allotments, and a significant number (30) saying they would like a plot over there if the church would let them (that doesn't include the six of us already over there).

We also had objections from the Environment Agency, because it's on the flood plain – this matter is unresolved as yet.
Bicester town and Launton Parish Councils also objected - strongly.

The church's application states that nobody wanted a plot. Well if you refuse to let people have one and don't want anyone who knows you 'manage' them to tell anyone else about them, it's hardly surprising that nobody wants a plot: It's a catch 22 situation.

If Carter Jonas has a report (like those lovely traffic reports, drainage reports, etc in the planning application) proving that they asked Launton and Glory Farm estate (which used to be in Launton parish) if anyone wanted an allotment, and the whole lot of us said 'no', then please get in touch and confirm it.

Until then I think we can safely assume their information is based on the fact that they didn't let anyone have a plot, didn't advertise availability of plots, and so didn't have anybody on the plots...


Please note also that it's against the law for a council allotment provider not to advertise sites to make sure nobody wants them, before they get rid of them(ie sell them off to a developer) cos they claim nobody wants them ... but private allotments are only governed by planning law.

(Another porkie in the planning application, which claims the allotments don't come up to statutory standard as they have no fencing or running water. Wrong x2. a) there is no statutory standard other than providing the land ... water and fencing are a bonus b) they are private allotments so (sadly) not covered by statutory regulations. Once again cherry picking the bits they like. If they like that idea of them being covered by statutory regulations so much, perhaps others should come into force, like the bit at the start of this paragraph.

picture courtesy and copyright Adrian Sherratt for The Times, London (look out for two more
fantastic pix by Adrian elsewhere on this site!)

I notice in the planning application (which is riddled with factual errors, not least  being the size of the site) that they are perfectly happy to cherry-pick policies from the 2004 plan and the 2011 draft plan, which show the site not zoned.

According to academic Jeremy Burchardt, Skimmingdish is one of the oldest surviving allotments in the country. Elsewhere local councils have worked to protect their heritage, sometimes despite a lack of demand – but there is no such problem here, with the town of Bicester being 38 per cent below average on allotment provision, and the village of Launton having no provision at all, save these allotments.

The background ...

We started over there last spring, not knowing who owned the land (there was no sign, or fencing) – the last legal tenant, for some reason, told us that he didn't know the owners and to dig in until someone came asking for paying.

In April this year the old tenant removed his shed and vacated his plot. I phoned him asking if anything was going on and he said 'no'.

I just got an email from Paul, the last legal tenant, who said: 
I forwarded 
> on your names to Carter Jonas when I was asked but
> Carter Jonas never seemed 
> to follow anything up, I had rang them a number of
> times about my plot, but 
> no one ever got back to me, therfore that is why I
> told you to use the plot 
> until someone contacts you, as there seemed to be no
> organisation at all, as 
> I was the only person paying rent they didn't seem
> bothered!.

So it seems they did know about us after all!!!!!

Oddly, within weeks, Carter Jonas, land agent for the diocese of Oxford, called my fellow digger Bob, to say can you get off our land. We were upset, but pleased – upset that we were being asked to leave, but thinking it was a mistake, we were pleased that we finally knew who owned the land and felt sure we could negotiate a lease with them.

If only they had stuck up a sign like this beforehand, we would have known who was responsible, and looking after the site (note the date on the letter):

(of course, if you phone them asking for an allotment they say no! Catch 22)
Then they said they wanted to develop the site. That's when the battle began.
And despite us proving that it is not on the local plan for development (it was in 96 and 02 but when the airfield next door was conserved for posterity, it was no longer zoned. It's outside the ring road and would be against many Cherwell planning rules, we believe) the church and their agents, say it is.
They blame the zoning on Cherwell ... just like they at one time they said we couldn't stay there because the county council for leaving it in an unsafe state (which the county council obviously deny!) and because there is little parking (it's not a spectator sport) and due to a lack of access (er, four gates).

So the situation now? After receiving letters from the church's solicitors threatening to sue us for every penny (that's how it reads, see below) if we didn't get off by the end of August, 05, we got off.

How very Christian of them, not. How supportive of their community, not. It's just bullying.



--------------Letters and plans coming up, hope they are all legible---------------------------------------


Pauline – one of us digging on the historic site despite the church's refusal to let us plots – got this letter from the Bishop of Oxford, who only wrote to her after she wrote to Prince Charles and The Archbishop of Canterbury (both men are big advocates of sustainable and organic living, supposedly) .
Interestingly, both the Archbishop and the prince said 'nowt to do with me guv' but at least they wrote to Richard Harries (Bishop of Oxford) who bothered to respond to their missives.
Interestingly too, Rowan Williams said he could do nothing because it was not in his diocese - yet he found the time and inclination to support (unsuccessfully) a convent of nuns in Littlemore, Oxford, because he was concerned about the late opening of a pub nearby, which was run by a former altar boy.
I didn't realise that Littlemore was part of Canterbury diocese, or perhaps the needs of a small community of nuns are far greater than the needs of the communities here in Bicester and Launton.
Here's the Bishop Of Oxford's letter to Pauline.
Post script to the above: But the application is NOT based on the 96 designation, or at least, is only partly based on it: the traffic surveys and other aspects of the application relate to the 2004 plan and the 2011 draft plan, both of which show the land not to be designated for anything. The district council reject the claim that the 1996 plan is the primary legal document.

And if the diocese uses glebe land centrally to pay parish vicars, why do parochial church councils always get asked to stump up more towards the cost of their vicar each year - surely the huge sums created by land agents like Carter Jonas flogging off the family silver should cover the costs of paying the vicars. Unless of course someone further down the chain is making the money ... just like in the third world when the makers get very little and the middle men make a mint.
Make poverty history...

Here's the church's threatening letter from their solicitors that we received in August:

It seems to say 'get off or we will take you for every penny you've got. Bless your Christian sentiment. I'm sure Jesus would be so proud of your behaviour. People trying to grow vegetables... support them? No, beat them into submission with threats of untold financial damage. Ethical and environmentally sound or what!

I make no apology for the above comment, the first part of which was quoted (out of context) at the district council meeting.
I was frightened to receive a letter from a solicitor for the Church Of England threatening to pursue me for compensation for any loss it incurs as a result of my occupation (albeit for one or two hours a day at maximum!) - my wife and children were also horrified.
We have a mortgage.
We don't have an income of £19m a year (unlike the Diocesan Board of Finance) and frankly it still upsets me to think that the Church feels it necessary to stoop to these depths in order to get its way. And (this was not quoted) I do not think such threats are ethically sound from the representatives of the church of england. Think globally, act locally...

Wouldn't want any other upstarts questioning out-of-date or just plain wrong advice from our highly paid advisors, would we?

Glad that they finally got in touch though. All those letters to the Glebe Committee with our addresses on asking them to have dialogue with us and explaining our situation and asking for clarification on theirs at least served some purpose, even if they couldn't be bothered to get in touch before now, and only write to us to threaten us.
One member of our group was phoned by someone purporting to be from the bishop's office asking for his address so the bishop could write explaining his view on the matter. Guess what? No letter from the Bishop, just the legal threat ...Ethics is a county near London, and Principles is a women's clothes shop for some people.



We really need your help

Allotments are so good for you...



There's nothing like homegrown vegetables, and fruit.
Best for flavour, best for your pocket, and best for the environment.
Locally grown food saves on air miles and reduces ecological footprints - ok so on our scale it's not much, but Every Little Helps...and you really can Taste The Difference between homegrown and supermarket stuff.

That's just one reason we want to save the allotments. There's massive interest in gardening nationally but Bicester has 105 plots for 30,000 people* and long waiting lists (24 on their list and 104.5 lots used at the moment.
I was on the list for one site but I was number 10. What's the point of being on such a list?
I have 34 people potentially interested on plots at Skimmingdish Lane alone, even though it is in such a dreadful state! ).
Launton has no allotments, other than this historical site, which dates back to 1839.
THAT IS ONE FACT WHICH DOES SEEM SOMEWHAT OVERLOOKED!
We don't believe it is fair that the church can arbitrarily close its allotment without informing the community it is supposed to serve.

We are now members of the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners, who sadly, hear of many similar cases to ours. However, they have confirmed that Bicester is about 38 per cent below average in its allotment provision.



When is an allotment not an allotment?

Sadly this is not a joke.

Skimmingdish Allotments has been there since 1839, but you would never know it.

There's been no sign to announce the site, there's no fence around the site(which means vandals can have a field day if they so wish, not exactly the best way to encourage people to invest time money and energy. Then again nor is having no water supply).

But despite that, until the Skimmingdish Road realignment was announced (which cut a swathe through the site), Stan Archer had no trouble letting up to 44 plots, a full house, on the site.

So what went wrong? When they announced the realignment many plotholders thought the whole site would be developed on, and at the time the land was down on the local plan for development – perhaps that's when people should have kicked up a stink (perhaps they did, but the church then, as now said 'it wasn't their fault, it's the council's fault'?).

Okay, skip on a bit. The road project finally gets underway and the contractors close the site for people's safety – temporarily. Afterwards what happens? Are people invited back on? One guy got his plot back and stayed there till April - when it all kicked off. What happened to the rest?

If it was closed, why was he allowed on?

If it was closed why did they offer a plot to Penny Stephens last summer (June 04)? (though actually they were quite right to do so, after all it was no longer on the plan for development by then)


If it IS closed, why do Carter Jonas still refer to it as allotments on letters they posted on the site after we challenged their decision in April (there was no way of knowing who looked after the site beforehand)?

If it is allotments, why when you phone Carter Jonas, do they say 'sorry you can't have a plot'?

As the land agents, why didn't they know about the extra tenants on their land – Penny Stephens says she told them last summer that there were more plots being tended than they had marked on the map of the site they gave her – until April this year, when they told us to get off their land?

As the land agents why did they insist to the church  right up until May 2005 that it was on the Cherwell local plan for development.

When I told the Rev Richard Thomas that the land was not marked for light commercial use so he could no longer blame their need to develop it on Cherwell District Council's planning policies, he said 'that's not the information I have'.

It was on the local plan for development in 2002, until the historic airfield next door was also marked out for development, but not any more. It was on the plan for development in 96, when the airfield was also going to be built on, but now it is not zoned at all for any development.

But if the land is still allotments – as Carter Jonas refer to it in their letters, as you can see from the letters on this site, dated this year and last. And there's no change of use, yet.

And if it is closed – as the church say – did the church ever bother to tell anyone what they were doing? To consult with them? Surely they wouldn't try to get rid of a historical part of Launton without telling their flock, the parish council, or anyone?

Apparently they would. The only people who can object, according to the church commissioners, are the vicar of Launton, Margaret Mullins, and the vicar of Bicester, as Launton parish team leader, Philip Ball.

So far, Mrs Mullins has put a notice in the village newsletter saying it is nothing to do with her and to contact Cherwell or the Diocese ... not even a personal opinion.



SUPPORT SKIMMINGDISH ALLOTMENTS


Bicester Advertiser. 19.8.05

THE Church Of England (The Diocese Of Oxford) has closed Skimmingdish Lane allotment on the outskirts of Launton – without telling anyone – or asking if the local community had any views on the future of this historic site, one of the oldest surviving allotment sites in England.

We need your support – even if you don’t want to take on a plot yourself. We want to try to show the church that they need to take a long-term view of supporting the community by encouraging healthy sustainable living by producing their own local food. At the moment they seem keen on their short-term view  – to sell the land for development, and build more business units, which will create more traffic, more fumes, more noise and more congestion on Bicester’s ring road.

By joining us, you show the church that you strongly oppose the destruction of these plots – and you won’t be alone.

Bicester Town Council, Launton Parish Council, Tony Baldry MP, Caroline Lucas MEP, Friends Of The Earth, National Society for Allotment & Leisure Gardeners, Campaign to Protect Rural England and many individuals have written to the church asking them to reopen the allotments.

Our supporters also ask the church to accept the so-called ‘squatters’ over there as tenants – after all the church’s land agents, Carter Jonas, were willing to offer a plot to a woman from Launton last summer.

The communities of Bicester and Launton could gain in many ways if the site was returned to full allotment use. If sold the church will gain cash in the short-term, but is ‘selling the family silver’ in the process.

In the long-term the local community has much more to gain from a thriving example of nature and wildlife than from some business units.

Also, as one of the oldest allotment sites in the country, it is a part of the history of Launton – and Bicester – that should not be lost to the bulldozers.

If the church was a local authority it would have to – by law to the secretary of state – show that a site is no longer needed for allotments (ie it’s been actively promoted and advertised but there are no takers**) and would be better used for alternative development.

As the church has made no effort to promote this site, or look after it, they cannot know if people want to see the allotments thrive, or would prefer a series of business units on green land outside the ring road, which is against Cherwell District Council’s planning guidelines.

By joining our campaign (see below) you can add your voice to the protests, and show the church (hopefully) that it is more than just a ‘small but vocal group’ who oppose development on the site.

** In Bicester, allotments were advertised in the town council newsletter earlier this year – all were taken up and there is still a waiting list on all sites, as of July 8, 2005.

Can you prove that the land isn't zoned for light commercial development?
See the little roundabout at the top left quarter, to the right and below Boston Road on the map? Our lotties are on the right of that. It's clear, not zoned, like the triangle below. I have uploaded a key, which should appear below. but the area is not zoned for ANY development. I thought it was marked for leisure, but that's the problem of a b/w copy of a colour map ... you lose detail. See a copy at Cherwell council offices in Banbury.

Here's the key to the pic above





Not zoned for anything. June 2004, which is the latest version. A new one is due out, but Cherwell have repeatedly said it is no longer zoned, so unless divine intervention means the church's guys have more uptodate info than me, then it will still not be zoned...


Ok, but what do Cherwell District Council think about it
Here are their planning notes on changing use of allotments. Bear in mind there is no sign marking the allotments, no water supply, and no fencing to protect the security of the site - at the moment!