Gate dispute puts volunteers at loggerheads

By John Dearing. As published on The Archer, February 2020

Disagreements over the use of a gate connecting the allotments to the pasture arose between the Pointalls management board, who are themselves volunteers, and long-time pasture volunteers Wayne Armsby and his wife Elsie Price, whose Long Lane home backs on to the allotments. These led to the board taking back their allotment plot and terminating the gate licence.

No access to equipment

Flooding at Long Lane PastureIn turn, this means the pasture team no longer have direct access to the tools and heavy equipment they use to maintain the two-acre site throughout the year. It has always been stored in a workshop behind Wayne and Elsie's house, close to the connecting gate.

Pasture trust chair Donald Lyven and vice chair Harriet Copperman told supporters in a letter that their current lease with Barnet Council does not permit them to build any equipment storage on the pasture site itself. β€œThe future of the Pasture could be in jeopardy if a solution is not found to this dreadful situation,” they said.

Volunteer Linda Dolata told The Archer that the pasture is the source of several springs and has always had a problem with flooding. β€œWe had this under control by pumping the worst of the water into the sewers but now we no longer have access to the power that we need to work the pump,” she said.

Response from Pointalls

Paul Hendrick, chair of the board of directors at Pointalls Allotments, said under their lease with Barnet Council only current plotholders were allowed to have gate licences, which no longer applied to Wayne and Elsie.

Flooding at Long Lane PastureHe said the issue of power for the water pump had not been raised directly with the board and questioned why equipment could not be moved from their workshop to the pasture's main entrance via Long Lane.

He added: β€œI stress we have no argument with the pasture's trustees. They have written to us with an outline proposal for an alternative arrangement for access. Our response was that we had no objection in principle but we needed to see a detailed proposal which met their needs but at the same time did not compromise our site security and was at no cost to Pointalls. We are awaiting their response.”