DRUMMOND GARDEN STUSHIE RUMBLES ON

Since Spurtle published Bill Giles’s response to our piece in Issue 215 (Breaking news, 28.2.13), we have  been contacted separately by two past and present residents (of Drummond Place and an adjacent street) who disagree with how things stand regarding access to the Garden. 

Unwilling to sour relations between current and former neighbours, they have requested anonymity.

To recap, the controversy concerns a decision made at the Garden AGM last year to restrict future access (where a key did not automatically come with the purchase of a property) to those living in the corner tenements on either side of each street leading out of Drummond Place

Previously, applicants seeking access to the Garden could come from further afield but had to wait at least 10 years on a waiting list. Those now fortunate enough to have an 'additional' key already are allowed to keep it at a cost of £125. The current fee for for proprietors is £100.

Bill Giles asserts that this restriction is necessary to protect the amenity for the existing additional key holders. He says it seems a reasonable assumption that people who would be glad to pay £125 each year for access to the garden as it now is would prefer to save their money if it became a dogs’ lavatory for the whole neighbourhood. He also points to an inevitable increase in litter, vandalism and all the other downsides of too many people using a relatively small space for too many conflicting purposes.

However, one of our correspondents – a would-be applicant  – is unconvinced by this argument. She points out that none of the other gardens in the New Town have had much difficulty defraying their maintenance costs by offering access to a larger paying community of local residents. Nor do they seem to suffer much from associated anti-social behaviour.

The other correspondent, a former Drummond Place resident whose flat came with a key, sheds further light on the reality or otherwise of Mr Giles's claims:

'He risks sounding completely disingenuous here. Why on earth is there suddenly a need for a further limit on numbers? I can confirm the fact – blindingly obvious to anyone walking past – that Drummond Place Garden is a relatively large space which is ridiculously underused. There are never more than one or two people in there and mostly it is completely deserted. Only on summer weekends could it be considered to be adequately used. 

‘When I lived there, priority on the waiting list was already given to those living in the corner flats, who were not entitled to a key by right, so this latest measure is in effect merely limiting numbers further by closing any hope of access to everyone else.

‘I suspect that the reason for the increased restriction is simply because access to the Garden is seen as part of the monetary value of Drummond Place properties. Also it makes those who live there feel exclusive. Since all the other street gardens in the New Town allow non-residents to obtain a key for an appropriate sum, what makes Drummond Place so special?'

None of Spurtle’s correspondents suggests that Drummond Place Garden should be completely open to the public without payment, but they are keen to highlight apparent inconsistencies in the current arrangements.

We would welcome further opinion and elucidation from readers on all sides of the debate.