In essence, the Judge ruled:

• Councils could not increase rents to lower costs.
• Councils should equate increases in Allotments to Swimming Pool, Tennis Courts and Bowling Green rent increases.
• Councils should accept that Allotments are a subsidised activity, and therefore loss making.

The Judge also relied on the ‘Harwood’ case but basically ruled that the Council could not raise rents for allotments without due regard to rises in other facilities offered by a Council.  He was particularly unimpressed with the Council witness stating that rents were raised to ‘reduce costs’.