Rushden Echo, 2nd March 1906, transcribed by Kay Collins
Rushden Allotment Society sued Mark Twelftree, of Rushden, at the County Court on Monday for 1/6, contribution to the management fund. Defendant said he objected to pay 1d. a month for management expenses. Judge Snagge said that according to the rules the case must first go to arbitration, and, if necessary, he would enforce the decision of the arbitrators.
|
Rushden Echo, 17th September 1909, transcribed by Peter Brown
A LARGE POTATO—Mr. S. Tuck, an Urban Council employee, dug up a potato on Monday which weighed no less than 1lb. 10oz. It was of the Duke of York variety, and was grown in a field off the Newton-road. There were four or five other good-sized potatoes on the root, besides a number of smaller ones which had been pushed out of the earth by the larger one. The latter, which had a fine skin and was of good flavour, made two dinners for three persons.
|
Rushden Echo, April 27th 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins
Seed Potatoes—Through the kindness of Mr. B. Ladds, of Rushden, who secured half-a-ton from a friend in Scotland, seed potatoes have been in plentiful supply in the town.
|
Rushden Echo, 22nd June 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins
Potato Spraying—Arrangements are being made for the spraying of the main crops of potatoes. Any members of the Rushden Allotment Association, also the holders of the waste land plots, who wish to have their potatoes sprayed, please sent in their application in writing not later than Wednesday next, June 27th, to the Secretary, 86 Newton-road, and state name of field or position of waste plot, with approximate quantity to be done. The charge will be 2s. per ten poles, sprayed twice.
|
Rushden Echo and Argus Friday 22nd March 1940, transcribed by Susan Manton
More Allotments for Rushden - Highfield Road Field to be ploughed shortly
The whole of that extensive tract of ground lying between Highfield Road and the Windmill Club, Rushden, will soon be bearing crops of fruit and vegetables.
About a month ago Mr. S. A. Lawrence, headmaster of the Rushden Alfred Street Schools, was given the task of disposing of this land, which is owned by the County Education Committee. Half of the land was, until a year or two ago, cultivated allotment ground and was bearing good crops while the other half has been a grass field for many years. Applications, about 80 in all, having been received for the whole of the land, ploughing of the grassland will commence in the course of the next few days.
The plots, most of which are of ten poles, will be let free of charge for the first year, after which a very small rent will be charged.
|
The Rushden Echo, 20th October 1961, transcribed by Jim Hollis
Does Rushden want allotments?
Is there a demand for allotments in Rushden? This was the controversial question posed at a public inquiry in the town on Monday. The urban council, which was applying for a compulsory purchase order for 10.36 acres of land near Wymington Spinney for use as allotments, claimed there was sufficient evidence of demand for allotments. But the appellants, the Norcott Building Co. Ltd., suggested that there was no such demand.
Mr. A. G. Crowdy, the clerk of the council, and Mr. David Eve, counsel for the appellants, submitted their evidence to Mr. Ronald W. Soden, a land commissioner for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who presided at the inquiry.
Moral Duty
Mr. Crowdy said that the Rushden Allotments and Smallholding Society, Ltd., had surrendered land to the council over a period of years and it was the moral duty of the council to provide alternative allotments for members of the society.
Cross-examined by Mr. Eve, the council surveyor, Mr. W. J. Anker, said there was no waiting list for allotments and only a few of the people who had land displaced by the council had not been accommodated.
The deputy county planning officer, Mr. J. D. Powell, in written evidence, said the 10.36 acres which the council wished to purchase would be an admirable alternative to other land in the area which the council would inevitably have to take out of allotment use for building purposes.
On Town Map
He explained that after a public inquiry in 1959, the Norcott Building Co. Ltd.,had been refused permission to build on the ground and the county council considered applications from the company and the urban council for allotment development.
Accordingly, the land was allocated for allotments in the town map of Rushden and Higham Ferrers.
Mr. Adrian Eve, a London chartered surveyor, who was called as a witness for the objectors, said that there was a provision of 6.78 acres of allotments per 1,000 population in the town map in draft form.
The land which was the subject of the order was intrinsically valuable as it was near two housing areas. He suggested the council should seek allotments on other sites.
He claimed that the demand for allotments came from the central area, and said that land nearer there would be more suitable.
However, Mr. Crowdy said: “The people live nearer to the appeal site than you would think.”
The witness contended that in each case when allotment land had been taken away it had never been replaced and that demand for allotments had declined over the past two years.
Right Place?
Said Mr. Crowdy: “Allotment land has never decreased by as much as 12½ acres as the result of action taken by the local authority.”
Summing up, counsel said that the council should satisfy the inquiry that this was the right place for allotments whether there was, or would be, a demand for them.
The Minister will announce his decision at a later date.
|
The Rushden Echo, 2nd February 1962, transcribed by Jim Hollis
‘No’ To Allotments : Some Are Pleased
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food has turned down Rushden Urban Council’s plan to acquire land compulsorily for allotments, the decision has gone against them, but some councillors are pleased.
The sighs of relief predicted at the public inquiry if the compulsory order was refused came from the knowledge that no heavy burden would be placed on the ratepayers, for the land is wanted for building purposes and would have cost a “pretty penny” to buy.
The land concerned – 10.36 acres near Wymington Spinney, off Boundary Avenue – was wanted by the council to replace allotment land taken from the Rushden Allotments and Smallholding Society Ltd., by the council about 18 months ago.
Obligation
It was stated at last October’s public inquiry that the council was under a “moral obligation” to provide alternative allotments for those taken over.
The chairman, Mr. Cyril Faulkner, asked to comment on the outcome of the inquiry, said: “Wefelt under an obligation to provide other accommodation for the allotment owners, but all along we did not expect a demand for more allotments. There are a lot vacant at present, and they are not as numerous as they used to be.”
At the inquiry, Mr. A. G. Crowdy, clerk to the council, admitted that having the land as allotments was not a source of revenue: “It is not its most profitable use – but a good use,” he said.
‘Pretty Penny’
Mr. Faulkner remarked that the land, if not used for building, would have cost the council a “pretty penny,” and if it was rented the allotment owners would probably not have been prepared to pay the economical rent required.
The secretary of the allotment society, Mr. H. Toby, agreed with this.
He told a reporter that it would have been too expensive for society members to rent the land if the order had been confirmed for the council.
He added: “Keeping allotments seems to be dying out in Rushden, in the county, and even all over the country.”
The Reasons
He suggested reasons for this; more wives went out to work – consequently there was a higher weekly income and the husbands did not need to grow vegetables to save about 30s weekly; with television and cars in abundance, people were not such keen gardeners as before; and younger men were not interested.
However, Mr. Toby predicted that if ever there was a slump in the boot and shoe industry – affecting the position in Rushden – people would go back to keeping allotments. He explained that the society was well supported, up to a point, but interest was not sustained.
What is the future of the 10.36 acres? Mr. H. Norris, a director of the Norcott Building Co., Ltd., the objectors at the inquiry, disclosed that the company had no immediate programme scheduled for the land, but it was likely that it would be developed – subject to planning permission being granted – as a residential area, in addition to another five acres the company has in the vicinity.
His firm, Mr. Norris pointed out, had objected to the council, having the land for allotments because it could be developed better for houses. Until he heard that the order had not been confirmed he was not very optimistic about the result as, he claimed, 95 out of 100 times similar objections – against compulsory purchase – were not upheld.
At Wednesday’s meeting of the council, Mr. A. G. Crowdy, clerk, gave advance information on the reasons for the Minister’s decision before the matter is to be discussed by the appropriate committee.
The Minister had accepted the conclusions of his Commissioner at the inquiry, who had recommended that the order should not be confirmed for two reasons – the demand for plots on the site had not been shown to exist, and there was reasonable provision of land for allotments within the urban district without the acquisition of the site.
|
|
