Agenda item

Discussion paper of the Allotments Officer (no decision required)

The Green Space & Allotment Officer introduced the draft Allotments Strategy 2015 (Growing Places). The strategy considered supply and demand for allotments in Cheltenham now and since 2005, as well as feedback from a customer satisfaction survey, to which a third of allotment holders (247) responded in early 2015. An action plan set out proposed activities for five key areas: allotment management; infrastructure, protection, provision and health & safety. One proposal was for the option to use some of the money currently set aside for new allotment provision for allotment site improvements (site security, health & safety and provision for disabled gardeners) instead. She explained that overall, those allotment holders that responded to the survey, were satisfied with the service provision, with 83% considering it to be good or very good. The main issue that was identified as a result of the survey was the need for additional security measures at two sites, where 60% of allotment holders had been the victims of crime in the last 5 years. Feedback on rent was that it was now at the upper level of what some people would be willing to pay.

The Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment felt that allotments provided a significant public service to residents across the town as well as representing great value and that the high level of satisfaction with the service was, in no small part, thanks to the work of the Green Space and Allotment Officer. He hoped that Councillors appreciated that the things had changed drastically since allotments were reviewed by a task group in 2012, when media coverage had resulted in an inflated waiting list; the position was rather different now. The strategy had already been considered by the Allotments Association, it would be considered by Cabinet in November and this was an opportunity for scrutiny to make any comments or suggestions.

The following responses were given to member questions;

· Clearly the Cabinet Member Finance would prefer that allotments were self-financing but in reality rent covered approximately 80% of the direct cost of the allotment service (water rates, Allotments Officer, etc) and legal advice was that rents were at the upper level of what the council could legally charge. There was an argument that allotments were a form of leisure service and other leisure services and recreational areas were funded by the council. It was estimated that 6-7k people were benefiting from allotments across the borough.

· Legal advice was that the council had no statutory obligation to provide anybody living in a parished area with an allotment. In spite of this the council had always accepted applications from people living in parishes but this became an issue 4-5 years ago but actioned more recently 2-3yrs ago, when the waiting lists were at their longest, these people were accepted onto the waiting list on the basis that priority could be given to those living in non-parished areas. As mentioned before the waiting list had now drastically reduced and this was no longer an issue but it was noted that those living in parishes were not taken into consideration when assessing the need for new non-parish provision.

· The demographic of allotment holders had changed in recent years and where it had previously been older males, investments in toilets, etc, had attracted more females and families; with up to 70% of some (the) current waiting lists being females. The majority of new allotment holders were taking on plots as a healthy hobby and to supplement their weekly shop and in line with demand, plots had gotten smaller. There was also more of a social community at each allotment site, which was in part, due to the facilities, as well as the change in profile of allotment holders.

· The council advised all allotment holders against storing anything of monetary or sentimental value in their sheds and to refrain from using locks to demonstrate this to any would be thieves. Typically it was November nights at the Hayden Lane site when all sheds would be broken into and the reports were for vandalism (breaking of the lock) rather than for theft, with only 20% having reported that anything had been taken.  Media coverage, both locally and nationally, had been blamed for two instances whereby a number of sheds had been broken into.

· Legal advice was that the council was not permitted to provide new provision for people living in parished areas and this included Up Hatherley, where unfortunately there were no parish council allotments either.

· The STG in 2012 looked at allotments and a number of sites where it was hoped that the land could be handed over to parishes, but legal reiterated the point that no borough council money could be spent on allotment provision for people living in parished areas.

· All medium to large scale developments were asked to provide allotments. The plan for the Leckhampton site included a large number of allotments and any plans for the North West of Cheltenham would be expected to do the same.

· A checklist had been developed which set out the level of commitment required from allotment holders. Similar information was also available on the website and take-up was now lower, with almost 50% of people deciding that they could not make the required commitment. Applicants were able to defer their take up of a plot until such time as they had the time and capacity to manage one.

· The plots that had been developed for disabled plot holders had been developed specifically for those individuals. The risk of making provision for disabled plot holders at every site would be that there were no holders to fill them, given the cost associated with adding raised beds, etc. General improvements to access and pathways had been significant and would be beneficial to all allotment holders.

· Hayden 2 was a site that lent itself well to use by community groups and had been used by County Community Projects, an NHS group working in the Mental Health area, Schools, Vision 21 and a group of Bangladeshi ladies.

· The 3 strikes rule which had been adopted after the 2012 STG review seemed to be working and this coupled with the rent rise (from £8 to £40-50 per annum A few senior citizens with very small plots had been paying as little as £8, which was not enough for them to give up the plot if they were not getting much use out of it. With most people now paying in the region of £40 to £50 per annum, it was enough to make people think twice about the value for money of their allotment and hand it back if they were not getting very much use from it.  This had resulted in a only 5% of plot holders having complained about unkempt plots. The Cabinet Member felt that it was important not to be too rigid about enforcements because of personal circumstances and it was important for the team to be able to use their discretion where necessary.

· There was no evidence that people on lower incomes were not taking up plots or were leaving because of the cost and if they were not included in the list within the strategy of those taking up plots, then this was simply an omission. This was not measured however, and whilst the option to provide a concession had been explored and  there would be costs associated with administering concessions whereas the cost of the allotment for those on low incomes was not considered to be prohibitive. The invoices were sent out in January of each year and there were two options for payment, a one-off lump sum or monthly instalments which equated to approximately £1 per week.

The Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment thanked members for a valuable discussion and confirmed that some amendments would be made to reflect their comments, before it was taken to Cabinet in November. He also took the opportunity to thank the Green Space and Allotment Officer for drafting the strategy and for all of her work with the allotment holders.

No decision was required.