Review of Allotment Provision
REVIEW OF ALLOTMENTS PROVISION
A FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR
CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL
By
ASHLEY GODFREY ASSOCIATES
January 2010
Ashley Godfrey Associates
2, Fanhams Hall Road
Ware
Hertfordshire
SG12 7NN
Tel:
01920 466601
Fax:
01920 466601
E-mail: ashley@ashleygodfrey.co.uk
Website: http://www.ashleygodfrey.co.uk
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
CONTENTS
1.
Page No.
Introduction ..................................................................................... 3
2.
History and Legislation ................................................................... 5
3.
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................... 12
4.
The Value of Allotments Provision in Cambridge ............................ 14
5.
Development of Planning Obligations ............................................. 19
6.
Appropriate Quantity, Quality and Accessibility ............................. 31
7.
Resources and Funding.................................................................. 34
8.
Recommendations .......................................................................... 81
Appendix A: Allotments Questionnaire
Appendix B: Results of Questionnaire Survey
Appendix C: County Plots Per 1000 Households
Appendix D: Catchment Maps for Allotment Sites
Ashley Godfrey Associates
2
Review of Allotment Provision
1.
Introduction
This Allotments Study sets out what Cambridge City Council wants to achieve for
allotments provision in the City in the future, examines how this will be achieved and
the resources that will be required to implement the actions proposed.
Allotments are a unique resource. They are a distinctive component of the City’s
green spaces with significance for wildlife and as part of the urban fabric. Allotment
gardening provides multiple benefits to individuals; communities and the wider
environment. Whilst allotment gardening is about the production of good quality,
fresh and low cost food, allotments also provide the opportunity for a year-round
healthy lifestyle which is active, socially inclusive and which reflects the ideals of
sustainability and well-being. Allotments have a significant role to play in the
protection and promotion of biodiversity. They represent an important opportunity for
community interaction where social and other boundaries can be overcome.
The high level of response shown by allotment holders during consultation over this
study shows that allotment gardening is well valued. The audit of allotment sites has
found that the majority of Cambridge’s allotment sites are well used and successful.
However, there is scope for the improvement of some sites through the provision of
better infrastructure such as fencing and facilities such as communal sheds, water
troughs and toilets.
Allotments have evolved through a history of social and economic change, which has
been accompanied by a succession of legislation known as the Allotment Acts which
remain relevant today to allotment administration and provision.
Allotments and allotment gardening feature in several other Cambridge City Council
strategies and plans including the Parks Asset Management Plan, the Open Space
and Recreation Strategy and the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.
Members of the local community who are plotholders have an important stake in the
future for allotments. They want to see their sites managed efficiently and effectively.
Plotholders are an important resource and the constructive and ongoing partnership
between the Council and Allotment Associations, sharing responsibilities through
devolved management, has contributed significantly to increasing the level of
Ashley Godfrey Associates
3
Review of Allotment Provision
participation in allotment gardening throughout the City and to the delivery of the
wider benefits that the Council regards as important.
This study aims to maximise the number of people using allotments. This will be
achieved through the provision of allotment sites with good facilities and plots in
sufficient numbers to satisfy all members of the community who wish to participate in
allotment gardening.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
4
Review of Allotment Provision
2.
History and Legal Background of Allotments
2.1
The First Allotments
The history of allotments starts with the Saxons who would clear a field from
woodland, which would be held in common.
In the late 1500s, the common lands used by the poor for growing food and keeping
animals began to be enclosed, resulting in the dispossession of the poor. As
compensation, allotments of land were attached to tenant cottages, and this is where
the first records of allotments, as it is understood, appear. The word "allotment"
originates from land being allotted to an individual under an enclosure award. The
first recorded enclosure was about 1654 -1658, but the period from 1760 to 1818
saw 3,500 Enclosure Acts of Parliament.
The General Enclosure Acts of 1836 and 1840 made it possible for landowners to
enclose land without making a request to parliament first, providing the majority of
them (in value and number) agreed to do so. The General Enclosure Act of 1845
attempted to provide more protection for the interests of small proprietors and the
public. This was enacted due to fear of civil unrest and revolt and provided for land to
be set aside for allotment use. The act required that the Commissioners should
make provision for the landless poor in the form of "field gardens" limited to a quarter
of an acre. This development marked the beginning of the modern day allotment. By
1850, it had become widely recognised that allotments were parcels of land to be
cultivated by a labourer, in his spare time, and for the provision of food for himself
and his dependants. At this stage, allotments were virtually confined to rural areas.
The Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act 1887 was the first
to compel local authorities to provide allotments where a demand was known to
exist.
2.2
Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908
The Smallholding and Allotment Act 1907 imposed responsibilities on parish, urban
district and borough councils to provide allotments. The Small Holdings and
Allotments Act of 1908 repealed and consolidated existing legislation and as such is
Ashley Godfrey Associates
5
Review of Allotment Provision
recognised as the basis for the modern allotment system. The size of allotments by
this time had reached a standard of 250 metres square (300 square yards).
2.3
World War 1 and the post war period.
During the First World War, there were significant food shortages which increased
the demand for allotments. Parks, open spaces, playing fields and tracts of
undeveloped land were requisitioned for the provision of allotments. After the war,
the provision of allotments appeared to be one of the best solutions to overcome the
difficulties that resulted from the economic conditions, the high cost of fresh
vegetables and the re-settlement of returning ex-servicemen into society. The Land
Settlement (Facilities) Act of 1919 was introduced to assist returning servicemen and
opened up allotments to all, not just ‘the labouring population’, and made
metropolitan borough councils into allotment authorities for the first time.
However, by 1922, landowners were putting pressure on the government to return
the land requisitioned under the emergency powers and allotment holders were
concerned about the security of their tenure. The Allotments Act 1922 was the
government’s response to this situation. The Act gave tenants more security by
laying down specific periods of notice; it compelled urban authorities to establish
allotment committees; and gave greater compensation on termination of tenancies.
The 1922 Act introduced the concept of the allotment garden into the law. The
allotment garden was restricted in size to a quarter of an acre (0.2 hectares) or less
and must be used mainly for the production of fruit and vegetables.
The Allotment Act of 1925 followed three years later with two main provisions. Firstly,
every local authority or joint committee of local authorities preparing a town-
planning scheme1 in pursuance of the Town Planning Act, 1925, was required to
consider what provision ought to be included in the scheme for the reservation
of land for allotments2. Secondly, a regulation that land purchased or appropriated
1
The first Planning Act was passed in 1909. It authorised the preparation by local councils of
planning schemes for any land ‘which is in course of development or appears likely to be used for
building purposes’, i.e. suburban land. Such schemes were to be prepared with the object of ensuring
‘that in future land in the vicinity of towns shall be developed in such a way as to secure proper
sanitary conditions, amenity and convenience in connection with the laying out of the land itself and
any neighbouring land’.
2 Town and Country Planning Act 1947 removed the requirement made in 1925 Act for town planning
authorities to consider allotment provision within town planning schemes.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
6
Review of Allotment Provision
by a local authority for use as allotments, known as ‘statutory’ allotment land, must
not be disposed of or used for other purposes without ministerial consent.
2.4
2nd World War
During the Second World War, Britain was confronted by food shortages. The
famous 'Dig for Victory' campaign exhorted and educated the public to produce their
own food and save shipping needed for war materials. Once again, public parks
were used for food production. In 1944, the Government estimated that allotments
accounted for 1.32 million tonnes of food production amounting to 10% of total food
production in Britain. Between the end of the war in 1945 and 1947, however, 0.5m
plots disappeared, with local authorities under considerable pressure to release
public open space back to its original use. The lack of statutory requirement for
planning authorities to make provision for allotments when formulating town plans
resulted in a decrease in the number of sites available.
2.5
Post World War 2
The Allotment Act 1950
In 1949, the Allotment Advisory Committee recommended that local authorities
should set a target of providing 4 acres (1.61 hectares) of allotments per thousand
population. It was aware that in some districts this guidance would be excessive and
in others too low. Guidance was therefore given which suggested that an authority
should make every effort to satisfy local demand fully.
The Allotment Advisory Committee made other recommendations, which were
included in the Allotments Act 1950. The most important feature of the Act was the
provision that the obligation of local authorities to provide allotments applied only to
allotment gardens. It is likely that the introduction of “allotment gardens” was
intended to restrict a Council’s obligations to provide. The 1950 Allotment Act
(Section 9) indicated that from 1950, the only land which could be demanded from
the council was the provision of allotment gardens and, in the case of a population in
excess of 10,000, this was limited to the provision of allotment gardens not
exceeding twenty poles in extent.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
7
Review of Allotment Provision
Thorpe Report
The Thorpe Report (1969) was commissioned by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
In it, Thorpe reviewed the reasons for the decline in allotment numbers which had
taken place since the Second World War. Although it had been argued that the
decline was caused by allotment land being taken over for other purposes, the
inquiry suggested that factors such as increasing prosperity and the popularity of
other leisure activities were also relevant.
The Thorpe Report enthusiastically
endorsed the concept of the leisure garden. Leisure gardens are plots of land that
are leased or purchased by householders to provide opportunities to garden and for
recreation within a garden environment. They are common in areas of continental
Europe, notably in Austria and the Netherlands where large urban populations reside
in high density apartment complexes. Space within the leisure garden may be
devoted to vegetable growing together with summerhouses, an area of lawn and
flower beds. Leisure gardens are often grouped together on sites in peripheral
locations. Thorpe saw leisure gardens as a way of re-invigorating and providing a
new direction for allotments to address the decline in popularity and usage of
allotments. A number of demonstration projects were established in Birmingham,
Bristol and Cardiff. However, the failure of Government to act upon the Thorpe
Report’s recommendations meant that any momentum behind the idea evaporated.
Local Government Act 1972
The Local Government Act 1972 amended the allotments legislation in a number of
matters of detail, for example, removing the requirement upon Local authorities to
establish allotments committees (contained in Section 12 of the Allotments Act
1925).
2.6
Present Day
The government has stated3 that it believes that allotments make an important
contribution to the quality of people’s lives in our towns and cities, and in creating
and maintaining healthy neighbourhoods and sustainable communities. Allotments
‘Growing in the Community, a good practice guide for the management of allotments growing in the community’,
Professor David Crouch, Dr Joe Sempik and Dr Richard Wiltshire for the Department of the Environment,
Transport and Regions, The Greater London Authority, the Local Government Association and the Shell Better
Britain Campaign.
3
Ashley Godfrey Associates
8
Review of Allotment Provision
are considered to be important social assets and the government is keen to ensure
that they are better appreciated and properly managed and maintained. Two key
events are significant. The first is the Select Committee for Environment, Transport &
Regional Affairs investigation into the ‘Future for Allotments’ and the second is the
Local Government Association guide on allotment management.
Future for Allotments
In 1997, the Select Committee for Environment, Transport & Regional Affairs
investigated the ‘Future for Allotments’. The Committee noted that there had been a
decline in allotment provision as more allotments were being lost to development.
Nationally, the number of plots has varied over time. In 1873, there were 244,268
plots and by 1918 there were around 1,500,000 plots. There were still 1,117,000
plots in 1948. The number has been in decline since then, falling to 600,000 by the
late 1960s, 530,000 plots in 1970, 497,000 plots in 1977 and by 1997 the number of
plots had fallen to around 265,000.
The findings of their enquiry were published in 1998 in their fifth report. This included
observations that allotments form an important part of leisure provision; contribute to
maintaining biodiversity; and contribute towards a sustainable environment. The
Select Committee concluded that, due to their potential importance, they should be
protected.
The Committee also assumed, from the evidence given, that there was an emerging
renaissance in allotment demand led by green issues and fear of commercial food
safety.
Growing in the Community: a good practice guide for the management of
allotments
The
Local
Government
Association
commissioned
a
guide
on
allotment
management in 2000, funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions, the Greater London Authority and the Shell Better Britain Campaign.
The study, entitled “Growing in the Community: a good practice guide for the
management of allotments” was based upon extensive research into current good
practice, innovation and successful ideas implemented by local authorities across
England and Wales. “Growing in the Community” provides a framework in which
Ashley Godfrey Associates
9
Review of Allotment Provision
local authorities might manage their allotment portfolio and includes the Local
Government Association’s ‘Advocacy Document’ for allotments, a powerful summary
of the many benefits which allotments can provide.
The objective of the guide is to assist local authorities or associations with devolved
management who are responsible for managing allotments to work more efficiently
and effectively by emulating examples of good practice.
The guide is organised in three parts: the Plot, the Tools, and the Seeds, dealing
with objectives, strategies, and practical methods respectively.
‘The Plot’ sets out the opportunities and challenges that allotments now provide to
councils and local communities, and explains how to get the most out of allotments.
‘The Tools’ identifies allotments as a key resource in achieving a wide range
of local authority agendas, including sustainable development, community wellbeing and health promotion, leisure and recreation, and the provision of
quality open space within the planning process.
‘The Seeds’ looks at ways to achieve good practice in allotments management,
including linking allotments with strategies for sustainable development and
community well-being, the promotion of allotments, setting rents and fund raising,
supporting
devolved
management,
communicating
effectively
with
other
stakeholders, provision of facilities, management of tenancies, and measures to
cope with hazards and nuisances before they arise. Finally, there is a checklist for
monitoring actions to achieve good practice.
2.7
The Legal Status of Allotments
The majority of allotment sites are owned by local authorities and may be termed
'statutory' or 'temporary'. 'Statutory' allotment land is land of which the freehold or
very long lease is vested in the allotments authority, and which was either originally
purchased for allotments or subsequently appropriated for allotment use.
'Temporary' allotment land is rented by an allotments authority or owned by the
authority but ultimately destined for some other use.
The designation of a local authority site as 'temporary' or 'statutory' is particularly
important since, under Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, a local authority must
Ashley Godfrey Associates
10
Review of Allotment Provision
seek permission from the Secretary of State before selling or changing the use of a
'statutory' site. The local authority must satisfy the Secretary of State that adequate
provision has been made for allotment holders who are displaced by the sale or
change of use of the site.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
11
Review of Allotment Provision
3.
Purpose of the Study
The review of allotment provision seeks:

to inform the monitoring of Policy 3/8 Open Space and Recreation Provision
Through New Development; Policy 4/2 Protection of Open Space; Policy 4/3
Safeguarding Features of Amenity or Nature Conservation Value in
Cambridge Local Plan 2006;

to provide a local evidence base for the Core Strategy, Development Control
Policies and Site Specific Allocations DPDs and for the review of the Planning
Obligations Strategy Supplementary Planning Document;

to provide an understanding of the differences between allotments and
community gardens and orchards and their legal protection;

to provide information to inform improvements to existing sites and the
provision and maintenance of new sites;

to inform the drafting of a new lease agreement between the council and the
allotment societies;

to inform the future management policy of allotment sites within the council’s
ownership; and

to inform the future management policy of those allotment sites where the
responsibility for site management has been devolved to an allotment
association.
The overall objective of this study is to optimise the use of allotment sites for existing
and potential plot holders, to identify needs and meet demand.
Adapting the overall vision for open space and recreation provision developed for the
Open Space and Recreation Strategy the draft vision for allotments provision is:
“To provide, improve and maintain a network of allotment sites that are
accessible to all, physically, culturally and socially, and which meet the needs of
those who live in the City while also protecting and enhancing the environment.
Local communities should be actively involved in decisions relating to improving
and creating allotment sites and their future use and management. The design of
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
allotments should provide opportunities for plotholders to grow vegetables, fruit
and flowers for their own use. Allotment sites should places that are safe,
celebrate cultural diversity, provide opportunities for learning and socialising
whilst also offering a peaceful and quiet respite from daily routine.”
This study provides a framework for the development and management of allotments
in partnership with the users which aims to:

enable Council allotment sites to be used to their full potential,

ensure that there are sufficient allotments available for the community;

increase the benefits derived from allotments;

build on the improvements already achieved in order to create an efficient,
flexible, effective Allotments Service that reflects best practice in allotment
management;

provide a 10 year plan to guide the work of the allotment management team;

increase the sustainability of allotments;

reflect good practice in allotment management;

reflect wider corporate objectives;

promote allotment gardening;

support good administration;

maintain adequate resources;

secure the provision of new sites in areas of under-provision and high
demand where this is feasible;

improve the standard of service provision;

support the uptake of allotments;

provide good practice guidelines;
The study will also inform the development of a service from which people can
expect:
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision

the availability of suitable allotment gardens within a reasonable walking
distance of every residential property;

safe and secure allotments sites with good security, good access, and
adequate toilet facilities;

fair, efficient and effective allotment administration;

effective and appropriate allocation of resources;

adequate water supplies by means of mains water standpipes; storage butts;
and recycled rainwater provision.;

opportunities for developing gardening skills;

fair and equitable rents and charges;

absence of neglected plots;

encouragement for sites to develop self-management.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
4.
The Value of Allotment Provision in Cambridge
Allotments are an important asset to Cambridge, providing a wide range of benefits
to local communities and the environment. They are a valuable green sustainable
open space that benefits wildlife and provides a recreational activity that offers
health, exercise, and social contact at a low cost. They are also readily accessible to
those members of the community who find themselves socially or economically
disadvantaged.
Allotment gardening benefits the individual gardener by providing access to
affordable, fresh vegetables, physical exercise and social activity. In addition, there
are associated environmental and social benefits that extend into the community,
which
can
support Cambridge
City
Council’s
efforts
towards
sustainable
development.
4.1
Allotments in Cambridge
The history of allotments in Cambridge reflects the national pattern. In 1966, a
review of allotments resulted in allotment societies surrendering land in return for
better facilities. The upturn in interest in the 1970s resulted in some allotments being
brought back into use. In the early 1980s, more allotments were lost to development
and in the 1990s, the trend continued with the release of 10 hectares at Histon
Road4.
In 1997, it was reported that there were approximately 43 hectares of allotment land
in Cambridge, or 1600 plots, on 27 sites. All but one of these were owned by the
City Council with most being leased to allotment societies on a three year lease. One
site was not in Council ownership, being owned and managed by Peterhouse
College, one of the colleges of the University of Cambridge.
Taking the total number of plots in use in 1996, this represented 1 plot for every 35
households. This was a high level of provision compared with the national average.
A survey in October 1996 showed that approximately 18% of all the plots were
uncultivated. There was a wide variation between sites, some being fully cultivated
4
Histon Road Allotments are located within the South Cambridgeshire District Council boundary but
are in the ownership of Cambridge City Council. The 10 hectares of allotment land released in the
1990’s was located within the City Council’s boundary.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
and some being relatively unused. Sites with particularly high levels of vacancy were
Newmarket Road, Nuffield Road, Stourbridge Grove, Fairfax Road, Peverel Road,
and Foster Road. The report concluded that land should be released for social
housing on Nuffield Road, Stourbridge Grove, and Burnside.
1997 Review of Allotments
The 1997 review of allotments in Cambridge presented a number of options for
funding capital improvements to allotments including:

funding improvements to sites to be rationalised directly through disposing
part of the site for housing;

the use of capital receipts from the sale of land for social housing to generate
an allotment improvement fund from which allotment improvements could be
funded directly;

selling part of a site(s) for private housing and use the capital receipts to
generate an allotment improvement fund for all/some of the sites.
The report considered the appropriate level of allotment provision in Cambridge. In
1997, the high level of vacancy and the shortage of land in Cambridge triggered the
need to consider how all the vacant allotments could be brought into use. It was
recognised that it was important to maintain a sufficient supply to cater for
fluctuations in demand and for increased interest in initiatives such as community
gardens and organic gardening.
Historically, a vacancy rate of 10% as the minimum vacancy level had been used to
allow for some increase in take-up and flexibility. Whilst it was considered that there
could be some increase in demand related to trends in organic/community
gardening, this was likely to be balanced by a continued decline in more traditional
allotments. As a consequence, sites with vacancy levels significantly above 10%
were considered for some release of land. The amount of land released also took
into account the level of usage on nearby sites, to allow vacancy rates of at least
10% on all of the sites within a group. Consideration was also given to the
distribution of allotments, to ensure access to local allotments from all parts of the
city without the need for a car. Subsequently, the sites at Newmarket Road and
Ross Street together with parts of Nuffield Road and Elfleda Road were released for
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
development. Capital receipts were used to fund improvements at a number of sites
in Cambridge.
4.2
Allotments as a sustainable source of food.
Allotments have traditionally enabled families to grow their own food to supplement
their diets, particularly with crops such as potatoes which are easy to grow and
produce a sizeable yield. Food production was particularly important during the war
years.
The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Report on the Future of
Allotments noted that:
‘When asked why they applied for an allotment, more than 75 per cent of plotholders mentioned the desire for fresh food. This aspect is particularly valued by
people who wish to grow organic produce and those who are concerned about
modern food production methods. Although the potential to save money was
noted by less than 20 per cent of plot-holders, allotments do provide an important
and cheap source of fresh food for poorer people.’
Consumers are increasingly concerned with the quality and origin of the food that
they buy. Allotment gardening provides people with the opportunity to have control
over the conditions in which food is grown. Moreover, awareness about food and
how it is grown helps to encourage people to eat more fresh vegetables and fruit.
Food grown on allotments provides dietary benefits at low cost which is particularly
important to people with low incomes.
There are environmental benefits resulting from the provision of a local source of
food that does not have to be transported over great distances. About 12% of the
nation's fuel consumption is spent on the processing, packaging and distribution of
food. Localised food production makes better use of available natural and social
resources.
Allotments make a contribution to sustainability by promoting and facilitating
composting, and can be managed in ways that demonstrate sustainable practices
like rainwater collection, and use of green technologies like composting toilets.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
Increasingly, allotment sites provide operate sustainable waste management with the
re-use, recycling and composting of waste material.
4.3
Allotments as a resource for health.
Physical inactivity can result in a range of health problems, and poor diet contributes
further to ill health. Allotment gardening offers healthy physical recreation available
to all, providing the opportunity for a year-round healthy lifestyle which is active,
socially inclusive and which reflects the ideals of sustainability and well-being. Unlike
other leisure activities, it not only provides exercise, mental relaxation and lifelong
learning opportunities, but also the fresh fruit and vegetables that facilitate healthy
living. Allotment gardening contributes to physical and mental good health and it is
increasingly being recognised for its therapeutic value.
Higher densities in urban areas mean that opportunities to enjoy quiet relaxation,
such as that offered by allotment gardening, are likely to become increasingly
important.
In Nottingham, the local authority supports the Eco-works project, which provides
opportunities for people with learning difficulties at the St. Ann's Allotments site. The
site caters for a wide range of people from disadvantaged communities, many of
whom are unemployed and some of whom have mental health problems. The Ecoworks project offers people a place to come, to have some exercise and structure in
their day and encourages people to develop self-confidence.
SAGE (Support Arts Gardening Education) has developed allotment plots at the
Grimesthorpe Allotments in Yorkshire. The allotment site is on a wheelchair
accessible plot which is supported by NHS Sheffield to help adults with mental health
problems recover from post traumatic stress, abuse, and bipolar disorder, and to
support those who are feeling low or isolated, including carers.
The influx of younger people, who are health and environmentally conscious, is
resulting in a change in the demographic profile of allotment gardeners.
Nevertheless, allotment gardening continues to be dominated by older people. This
is a segment of society for whom it is key that they take part in physical activity on a
regular basis, and the exercise that allotment gardening provides can help keep
older people active for longer.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
A number of charitable organisations, including MIND and the Cambridge Cyrenians
have plots on sites in Cambridge, which provide opportunities for local people with
health problems.
4.4
Allotments as a community resource.
Allotment gardening brings together people from all age groups and backgrounds
around a common interest. It can help foster a mentoring relationship where
experienced gardeners can pass on their knowledge to younger or less experienced
ones.
Links
with
local
community groups
and
schools
can
further
increase
the importance of allotments as a valuable community resource. If allotments can
become more important to local communities, then problems with security and
vandalism should decrease, demand should increase and participation should widen.
There are examples of allotment societies that play a wider role in community
projects, becoming involved in initiatives with local schools, as well as programmes
for the mentally and physically ill or disabled. For example, Welbeck Road
Allotments Trust in Sandiacre, Derbyshire provides a Community Polytunnel, which
is 24 feet wide by 72 feet long. This has been a very successful project, providing
allotment holders and local school children with the benefits of growing in a large
polytunnel.
Uplands Allotment Association situated in Handsworth, Birmingham has been very
successful in embracing local people from a wide variety of cultures and
backgrounds, engendering
an
openness
that
has
encouraged
community
development. The association's annual festival attracts local, regional and national
publicity.
4.5
Allotments as an educational tool.
Increasingly, there is a need for children to be taught about where food comes from
and the value of fruit and vegetables to healthy lifestyles. School based projects on
allotments offer an ideal opportunity to do this. Food growing can be linked to food
technology within the school curriculum. Some schools in Birmingham have done
this since the I980s, where it has led to after-school gardening clubs and cooking
clubs.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
Gardening projects can exploit children's enthusiasm about gardening to teach them
about core curriculum subjects, including maths, science, geography, history and
English.
Wootton Primary School in Oxfordshire set up a project, which linked their school
with one in Thailand. Produce from the school is sold, with profits going to the Mok
Taew School. This project has raised multi-cultural awareness for both schools.
An example of how allotments can provide an educational resource is the Wilsthorpe
Road Allotments Association in Long Eaton, Derbyshire who have built a pond as
part of a project to develop a wildlife area. Funding was obtained from the Allotments
Regeneration Initiative, the local council and local businesses. Groups of local
schoolchildren regularly visit to study pond life, and are also encouraged to take an
interest in growing and eating fresh vegetables.
4.6
Allotments as a resource for bio-diversity.
Allotments have a significant role to play in the protection and promotion of
biodiversity. Allotments located in urban areas can provide important habitats for
wildlife through the provision of food, shelter and breeding sites. Allotments are
becoming an increasingly important resource for wildlife. The range of plants on
allotment sites offers a varied and valued habitat for flora and fauna, as do compost
and wood piles. Allotments also provide shelter havens for a range of wildlife
including hedgehogs, robins and thrushes.
4.7
Allotments as open space.
Allotments are an important component of urban green space networks. They
enhance local amenity and provide structure to urban areas. The increasing intensity
of development means that a smaller proportion of dwellings are likely to have
access to a garden. Where new dwelling do have gardens, those gardens are likely
to be smaller.
Allotments and community gardens are valuable green spaces and community
assets that can help improve people's quality of life. The Government's aim is to
ensure that allotments are considered as part of the overall green infrastructure.
Allotments are protected through the legislative and planning framework within the
wider context of a national policy to improve the quality of urban green spaces.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
The planning system through PPG17 (Planning for open space, sport and recreation)
and PPS3 (Housing) provides a robust framework for the protection of urban green
spaces, including allotments.
4.8
Social Interaction
Allotments sites provide a community of people within which allotment holders can
interact which is of benefit to everyone. However, social interaction can be
particularly important for individuals who might otherwise be isolated, such as older
people, the unemployed, or those with ill health.
Allotments have the potential to provide opportunities for people who might
otherwise have very few chances to socialise, and in this respect allotment gardens
offer the opportunity to support a number of hard to reach groups.
Communal gardens and allotments have been used to help asylum seekers integrate
into their new communities. Here the social interaction has been combined with the
therapeutic aspects of gardening to provide an effective means of helping ease
asylum seekers into their new environment.
4.9
Policy Context
The Council’s Medium Term Objectives
Identified in 2006, the City Council has four Medium Term Objectives. The Council’s
vision of the City is of a sustainable City with attractive green spaces. There will be
strong leadership on environmental issues, and diverse local communities will enjoy
a high quality of life supported by good access to leisure facilities.
In meeting the Medium Term Objectives, relevant actions include:
 encouraging sustainable waste management through waste minimisation, re-use
and recycling;
 consulting residents and service users in order to know what is important to them
and providing opportunities for involvement in the council’s decision making;
providing attractive clean streets, neighbourhoods and open spaces and ensuring
that residents can access a range of recreational and community facilities and
activities;
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
and promoting best practice in the provision of green space in the City.
Cambridge Parks - Managing the City’s Asset 2010 to 2014
This Strategy examines the value and role of green space, in contributing to the City
Council’s Medium Term Objectives and the principles of the Cultural Framework. It
provides an approach to managing Council owned green space assets for the period
2010 to 2014. The ‘green space assets’ include those Parks, Amenity Green
Spaces, Children’s Play Areas, Allotments, Outdoor Sports, Closed Churchyards and
Natural Green Spaces, managed by the City Council.
A full audit of the green space asset provides the evidence to support management
policies based on the understanding of relationships between quality, quantity,
accessibility and value.
A detailed analysis of usage clarifies, how people use green space. This guides
policy on how to set service delivery priorities to improve satisfaction, and ensure
services are most effective. The strategy sets out how the Council will engage with
and encourage people to be actively involved with their neighbourhood green space.
A review of available resources identifies the need for these to better targeted and to
ensure costs are understood to help improve efficiency. There is a need to consider
how to improve the skills of staff to deliver improvements to the asset.
The key outcomes for the green space asset are:

safety, access, facilities and usage;

community ownership;

biodiversity and sustainable practices;

management and maintenance;

creating strategic links relating to green space;

provision for children and teenagers;

health;

access to and maintaining heritage;

co-ordination of management across the Council;
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision

use of resources.
The action plan aims to: 
Ensure long term planning of capital investment;

Encourage local decision-making and accountability;

Enhance
cross
service
strategic working in
partnership
with
other
organisations and;

Better use of and management of the green spaces.
The strategy will be incorporated into service plans for forthcoming years and
progress reviewed on an annual basis with a strategic review in 2014
Cambridge Sustainable Community Strategy 2008 – 2011
The Local Strategic Partnership wants sustainable communities to be built that are
thriving, environmentally sensitive and affordable places in which to live.
Concern is expressed that a substantial number of new homes will be built in and
around the City over the next few years, capitalising on its success:
‘if we don't get it right, growth could put pressure on existing open spaces’
The LSP is seeking to ensure that there are easily accessible open spaces, rich in
biodiversity, maintained and enhanced in Cambridge in the future.
Cambridge Local Plan 2006
The Cambridge Local Plan sets out policies and proposals for future development
and land use to 2016. It sets out a vision for Cambridge and objectives for
achievement. It provides a framework of policies and proposals against which
planning applications can be assessed. The Local Plan focuses on achieving the
land use planning aspects of sustainable development.
The vision for Cambridge is of a compact, dynamic City with a thriving historic core
surrounded by attractive and accessible greenspaces. The Local Plan sets out a
strategy for delivering this vision, which has a number of components which
contribute to sustainability, including the conservation, enhancement and provision of
green spaces.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
Policy 3/8 ‘Open Space and Recreation Provision Through New Development‘
requires that all residential developments should make provision for public open
space and sports facilities in accordance the Open Space and Recreation
Standards. Provision should be on-site as appropriate to the nature and location of
development or where the scale of development indicates otherwise through
commuted payments to the City Council.
A key objective is to ensure that open spaces are safeguarded and maintained for
the future. To this end, Policy 4/2 Protection of Open Space, makes it clear that
development will not be permitted which would be harmful to the character of, or lead
to the loss of, open space of environmental and/or recreational importance unless
the open space uses can be satisfactorily replaced elsewhere and the site is not
important for environmental reasons.
Cambridge Environmental Framework 2009-2012
Cambridge City Council identified the promotion of sustainable development as a
priority, with the objective to:
“Promote Cambridge as a sustainable city, in particular by reducing carbon
dioxide emissions and the amount of waste going into landfill in the City and subregion”.
The document outlines the corporate environmental objectives of Cambridge City
Council are and provides a framework for co-ordinating actions which contribute
towards their fulfilment. With regard to minimising waste, one of the framework’s
actions, local food growing such as that taking place on allotments, avoids the
environmental impacts associated with production, processing, packaging and
transporting commercial food products.
Allotments Local Habitat Action Plan for Cambridgeshire (Reviewed: May
2008)
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
This Action Plan is concerned with biological status of allotments in the County and
makes specific reference to allotments in Cambridge. There is evidence 5 that
allotments have on average up to 30% higher species diversity than urban parks.
Allotments are described as being:
‘a haven for wildlife, and the cultivated and fallow ground, nectar producing
plants, compost heaps, empty plots, grass areas, sheds and stores, and the
boundary hedges and banks all provide a diversity of habitat, attracting birds and
insects and small mammals.”
The biological interest of allotments is derived from the variety of habitats on an
allotment including hedgerows, which offer a refuge for birds and invertebrates,
ditches and grassy banks. Compost heaps also are a haven for insects and
invertebrates and overwintering invertebrates and mammals. Plots left uncultivated
can often offer a haven for wildlife while some tended plots act as seed banks for
rare vegetable species.
The Action Plan cites a number of example projects located in the City. Coppice
plots were established at Vinery Road in 1999 and are now a valuable source of
materials for the plot holders. At Burnside allotments, a management plan has been
produced, wildlife areas have been created and perimeter hedges maintained. Hazel
coppices have been created for producing peasticks at Burnside and Histon Road. A
wildlife area including a pond, which is now a breeding site for amphibians, has been
constructed at Histon Road.
Reference is made to a nature area being developed on long under-used horsetail
infested plots at one end of Empty Common. Whilst at Foster Road allotments, a
chalk grassland sward has been established on a 20 pole allotment where there is
also a bee hive.
5
'The allotment and leisure gardens and the sustainable development' Office International du Coin de
Terre et des Jardins Familiaux
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
5.
Development of Planning Obligations
The Local Development Framework will be the statutory instrument for protecting
existing allotment sites. Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 can secure the provision of new allotments to meet the
needs of resident in new residential developments. Government Circular 05/05 gives
further guidance on the use of Section 106 agreements.
5.1
Standards of Provision
The local standard of provision will assist in maintaining an appropriate level of
provision of allotments in the city to meet future need. This is important given the
need for additional provision as a result of population growth in the city, principally in
the Growth Areas and the need for ongoing investment in the existing infrastructure.
The quantity, quality and accessibility of allotment provision in the Growth Areas are
established by the standards of provision. The standards also provide the basis for
calculating the commuted sums to fund a stream of revenue payments, which will
pay for the maintenance or establishment of allotments provision over a number of
years6. They also provide the basis for the calculation of developers’ contributions,
which are the capital sums used to fund the required new provision where this is to
be undertaken off-site.
National Guidelines
There is no legal national minimum standard of provision. However, local authorities
are required to audit their allotments, set local standards of provision and assess the
actual level of provision against this standard in order to comply with the
requirements of PPG17.
The 1969 Thorpe Report recommended a minimum provision equivalent to 15 plots
per 1000 households7 , which equates to 6.4 plots8 per 1000 population or 0.16
hectares per 1000 population.
The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG) recommend a
minimum level of provision of 20 allotment plots per 1,000 households, which
6
Currently 12 years (Planning Obligation Strategy 2004)
Average Household size in England & Wales is 2.36 (2001 Census).
8 A plots is 250 m 2.
7
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
equates to 8.5 plots per 1000 population or 0.21 hectares per 1000 population. The
NSALG advise that the standard plot size is 300 sq yds (250 sq metres). Clearly
there is a difficulty in considering a standard of provision based on household given
the trend of falling household size since the 1950s.
The Survey of Allotments, Community Gardens and City Farms, carried out by the
University of Derby on behalf of DCLG in 2006 showed that the national average
provision was 7 plots per 1,000 population, which equates to 0.175 hectares per
1,000 population.
Cambridge City Council’s Open Space and Recreation Standards
The Open Space and Recreation Strategy was adopted by Cambridge City Council
th
on November 7 2006. It is a material consideration in the determination of planning
applications and appeals, supporting the policies in the 2006 Local Plan.
The Strategy provides guidance on the provision of open space by informing the
Masterplanning process for the growth areas and through the consideration of all
new development. Allotments should be provided through new development in the
Urban Extensions in accordance with the Open Space Standards included in the
2006 Local Plan. Any shortfall in provision on site is to be met through commuted
payments to the City Council.
The standards as set out in the adopted Cambridge Local Plan apply to all schemes
for new residential developments in the Urban Extensions and the requirement is
based on the number of people accruing from the development. The standard for
allotments is 0.4 ha per 1,000 people.9
The allotments standard was based on existing provision which in 2006 was
calculated to be approximately 41 hectares of allotments on 24 sites, resulting in a
level of provision of 0.38 hectares per 1000 people. The Strategy states that:
“The majority of sites are well used. This level of provision seems appropriate, as
it meets existing demand, with some scope to meet for an increase in usage.”
Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2006, Table 1: The City Council’s Open Space Standards
Page 18.
9
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
However, in applying the standard the Strategy makes it clear that allotments will
only be required through the standards for the urban extensions. It was anticipated
that development in the urban extensions would generally be of a higher density with
smaller gardens than much of the existing built up area of Cambridge.
Further guidance indicates that it may be appropriate for allotments to be located in
the Green Belt where these are provided for urban extensions. With regard to
accessibility the Strategy states that
“Sites should be accessible, by foot and cycle as well as by car, and preferably
be within 1 km of the catchment population.”10
Comparison with other similar or exemplar local authorities.
The majority of the data obtained for other local authorities has been obtained for
open space studies undertaken to provide the evidence base for the relevant
authority’s Local Development Framework (LDF).
A review of the provision and standards of other similar or exemplar local authorities
has been undertaken. The selection of similar local authorities was guided in the first
instance by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Corresponding local authority
data. The ONS has produced a list of the local authorities whose characteristics are
most similar to Cambridge11. These are shown in Table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1: ONS Corresponding Local Authorities
Similarity
Locality
Most similar
Oxford
2nd
Southampton
3rd
Brighton and Hove
4th
Bristol
There is no information available for the most similar local authority, Oxford City
Council. However, data is available for the remaining three local authorities and this
is shown in Table 5.2 below. The standards of provision in these three local
10
Para 5.29, Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2006.
LADS What is a LADS are considered extremely similar if the SED is less than 2.66646 (within 1%
of total range). LADs are considered Very Similar if the SED is less than 5.94795 (within 2.5% of total
Range). LADs are considered Similar if the SED is less than 11.4171 (within 5% of total Range) LADs
are considered Somewhat Similar if the SED is less than 22.3554 (within 10% of total Range)
11
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
authorities are approximately half that of Cambridge with the highest being Brighton
and Hove with a standard of 0.23 hectares per 1000 population. The lowest standard
is Bristol City Council with 7 plots per 1,000 population which equates to 0.175
hectares per 1,000 population.
The standards of provision together with existing levels of provision for other local
Authorities are shown in Table 5.2 below.
Several local authorities have standards that are comparable with Cambridge,
notably Harrogate, Redcar and Worcester, which all have a standard of 0.4 hectares
per 1000 population. Coventry (0.38 hectares per 1000 population) and Salisbury
has an urban standard of 0.55 hectares per 1000 population.
Some local authorities have significantly lower standards, notably Colchester and
Welwyn Hatfield. The standard for Colchester (0.2 hectares per 1000 population) is
higher that the existing level of provision (0.16 hectares per 1000 population). This
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 5.2: Standards of Provision and Existing Levels of Provision in other
Local Authorities
Local Authority
Standard (hectares
1,000 population)
Brighton & Hove
0.23
Bristol
0.175
Cambridge
0.4
Existing
level
of
per Provision (hectares per
1,000 population)
0.32
Carlisle
0.14
Chester
0.16
Colchester
0.2
0.16
Coventry
0.38
0.38
East Northamptonshire
0.34
0.34
Erewash
0.31
0.29
Exeter
0.36
Gloucester
0.2
Harlow
0.3
Harrogate
0.4
Hull
0.24
0.2
0.21
Ipswich
0.53
Kingston
0.28
Lincoln
0.3
Luton
0.2
Milton Keynes
0.25
Northampton
0.2
Redcar
0.4
Salisbury
0.55 (Urban) & 0.30 (Rural)
Sandwell
0.31
Shrewsbury
0.17
0.36
0.4
Solihull
0.3
South Northants
0.38
Southampton
0.2
Stevenage
0.09
Taunton
0.12
0.24
Thurrock
0.375
0.25
Welwyn Hatfield
0.13
0.13
Wolverhampton
0.2
Worcester
0.4
York
0.292
Ashley Godfrey Associates
0.29
Review of Allotment Provision
has been justified on the grounds that there is significant evidence that sites are
currently operating at capacity and there is demand for new sites across the
Borough.
5.2
Impact of growth
The East of England Plan requires at least 19,000 additional new homes to be
brought forward in Cambridge up to 2021, compared to the baseline housing
provision in 2001. Most of the new homes to be built in Cambridge will form part
of major developments on the city's southern, north-west and eastern fringes.
The City Council has made a commitment to achieving attractive, sustainable
new neighbourhoods close to a good range of facilities. The Council’s approach
emphasises, inter alia, the importance of high quality design, thriving
communities, open spaces, conservation and biodiversity, so that everyone can
benefit from the growth of Cambridge. The Cambridge Local Plan 2006,
Cambridge East Area Action Plan and North-West Cambridge Area Action Plan
set out the standard of provision for allotments in the Growth Areas to meet the
needs of these new and growing communities.
5.3.
Community Gardens and Orchards
Community gardens are locally managed areas of land that have been developed
in response to the needs of the communities in which they are based.
The origins of community farms and gardens stem back to therapeutic gardens
associated with hospitals, school growing areas and early co-operative
agricultural systems. Changing culture and a reduction in spaces available led to
a decline in the number of gardens. However, since the 1960s, there has been a
resurgence in community food growing, partly inspired by the growth of the
community garden movement in the United States.
The Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (FCFCG) was
established in 1980 and is the representative body for city farms, community
gardens and similar community-led land-based organisations in the UK. FCFCG
now represents around 60 city farms, nearly 1,000 community gardens, more
than 70 school farms, a growing number of community-managed allotments and
at least 200 city farms and community gardens in development.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
Many community gardens have been created when local residents sought to
transform vacant sites into green spaces that included vegetable plots, wildlife
areas and flower gardens. Community gardens all grow plants but many also
provide a wide variety of social, recreational, educational and environmental
services, facilities and opportunities that are generated by and help meet local
needs.
Local people, who wish to make a positive contribution to regenerating their
communities, have been at the forefront of the development of successful
community gardens. In most cases, community gardens are run by a
management committee formed by local people, usually working on a voluntary
basis. It has been estimated that over 300,000 individuals are involved in at least
450 community gardening programmes around the country.
Since 1999, the Women's Environmental Network (WEN) has been promoting
and developing the Taste of a Better Future Network, a national network of food
growing groups. One of its aims is to bring minority women together to form
community vegetable and herb gardens. WEN recognises that such groups have
little access to affordable healthy food, particularly traditional fruit and vegetable
varieties, or to gardens of their own. WEN's community food growing initiatives
encourage women to come out of their immediate family circles by gardening with
other people.
One success story is Bolney Court in Crawley, Surrey where as part of the Let's
Face It and the RHS South East in Bloom campaigns, volunteer residents cleared
3.7 tonnes of rubbish from an area of the estate and turned an overgrown site
into a flower garden.
One long-term resident of Bolney Court believes the garden has had a massive
impact on the community. "I've lived here for ten years and I didn't really know
anyone before we started the work, now we are all friends. We've created a type
of village life where everyone looks out for each other." Once intimidated by
gangs in the area, residents are enjoying an attractive and secure environment.
Community gardens do not have any legal protection. Most are sited on what was
previously derelict local authority land. In the longer term community gardening
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
initiatives are likely to make an important contribution to the provision of green
space in urban areas.
One good practice example of a Community Garden that has been provided as
part of a development is that of Culpeper Community Garden12 in Islington. A site
visit by a member of the Trumpington Allotment Society revealed that at Culpeper
5-10% of the space was used for growing food.
Whilst allotments are well understood and well-defined to be mainly for food
production, Community Gardens are less well-defined and perform a different
function from that of allotments.
5.4
Future needs
The population of Cambridge can be considered in terms of four sub areas, which
are the areas which comprise the Area committees. Population forecast
s are shown in Table 5.3 below.
Table 5.3: Cambridge City Council population forecasts
2006
Population
2021
Population
Projected
Population
Increase
Future Requirement
for
Additional
Allotment Provision
(Hectares)
33400
41400
8,000
3.2
West/Central 24000
30800
6,800
2.72
South
23700
37600
13,900
5.56
East
32800
39600
6,800
2.72
Total
113900
149400
35,500
14.2
North
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group 2005-based ward age-group forecasts.
This is not the most up to date data – please see website within comment.
The Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group population forecast
projects a likely increase in population of 35,500 persons over the period 2006 to
2021. Applying the standard of 0.4 ha per 1,000 people indicates a future
requirement for an additional 14.2 hectares of allotment provision by 2021.
Examining the future requirements of the different sub areas, it is clear that the
main area of population growth will be in the South Area where there are several
12
http://www.culpeper.org.uk/big_map.cfm
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
substantial Growth Areas and where the population will increase by 13,900. Here
the requirement will be for a further 5.56 hectares of allotments. There is a need
for 3.2 hectares in the North Area, and 2.72 hectares in both the West/Central
and East Areas.
The Growth Areas are identified in Map 1. Development proposals for a number
of these areas have already come forward and these include provision for
allotments. Details are shown in Table 5.4 below.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 5.4: Proposed Allotments in Growth Areas
Growth Area Location
Proposed Allotment Provision
Trumpington Meadows - about 1,200 0.9 hectares
homes
Glebe Farm - about 300 homes
0.27 hectares
Clay Farm - up to 2,300 homes
1.4 hectares (as well as 0.6 community
gardens)
Bell School - about 350 homes
0.3 hectares
Northwest Cambridge
Make reference to North West
Cambridge Area Action Plan(0.4
hectares per 1000 people, )
NIAB - about 1,800 homes
1.6 hectares
Cambridge East - up to 12,000 homes
The Cambridge East Draft Spatial
Masterplan (January 2008) makes
reference
to
allotments
and
smallholdings in order to provide
opportunities for local food production
and the adopted Cambridge East Area
Action (February 2008) Plan includes
the standards for allotment provision as
0.4 hectares per 1000 people in line
with the requirements of the Cambridge
Local Plan 2006.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
Map 1: The Location of Growth Areas
Replace dwelling occupancy rates with those used in Local Plan
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Review of Allotment Provision
Ashley Godfrey Associates
37
Review of Allotment Provision
6.
Appropriate Quantity, Quality and Accessibility
6.1
Quantity
The audit of provision found that there are 23 sites within the boundary of
Cambridge City Council. These are shown on Map 1. However, there is an
additional site at Histon Road (A012) which is owned by the City Council but is
located within the boundaries of South Cambridgeshire District Council. It is
occupied primarily by Cambridge City Council residents. On this basis, the site
has been included in the calculations of current provision. The site at Victoria
Homes (A022) is a private site, which is located within a group of almshouses
and is available for residents of the almshouses or people with a close
connection to the almshouses only.
Current provision has been calculated using the site areas measured by the
Geographical Information System (GIS). This necessarily includes circulation
areas, wildlife areas, car parking etc. The number of plots shown in Table 6.1
cannot be regarded as an accurate measure of provision because of the variable
size of plots. It does, however, provide some indication of the availability of plots.
On the basis of 1340.25 plots, provision is 11.77 plots per 1000 population. This
is higher than the NSALG recommended minimum level of provision of 8.5 plots
per 1000 population. An alternative comparison can be made in terms of
provision per household. In Cambridge, provision equates to 25.4 plots per 1000
households compared to 18 plots per 1000 households in Cambridgeshire (see
Appendix C).
Whilst the standard of provision of 0.4 hectares per 1000 population is high
compared to existing national guidelines and the standards set by other local
authorities, it is not unreasonable. The current level of provision of 0.36 hectares
per 1000 population is insufficient to meet current demand. The findings of the
questionnaire survey show that a high proportion of Cambridge allotment holders
are very long standing. The low rate of turnover of plots affects the length of time
people remain on a waiting list.
The level of unmet demand is shown in the analysis of waiting lists in Section
6.1.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
38
Review of Allotment Provision
Map 1: Cambridge Allotment Sites
Ashley Godfrey Associates
39
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 6.1: Allotment Provision in Cambridge
Ref No. Site Address
Area (Hectares)
Number
of
Plots (10 pole
equivalent)
A001
Auckland Road Allotments
0.3
12
A002
Baldock Way Allotments
1.5
56
A003
Bateson Road
0.12
4
A004
Burnside Allotments
3.34
98
A005
Dawes Lane Allotments
2.21
72
A006
Elfreda Road Allotments
4.29
140
A007
Empty Common Allotment
1.65
47
A008
Fairfax Road Allotments
1.64
58.5
A009
Fanshawe Road Allotments
0.62
29
A010
Foster Road Allotments
2.08
59.25
A011
Hawthorn Way
0.15
5
A012
Histon Road
5.94
191
A013
Glebe Road/Holbrooke Road Allotments 2.34
85.5
A014
Kendal Way
0.1
3
A015
Maple Close
0.06
2
A016
New Street Allotments
0.47
18
A017
Nuffield Road Allotments
2.58
66
A018
Pakenham Close Allotments
4.84
159
A019
Perne Road Allotments
0.68
23
A020
Peverel Road
0.4
16
A021
Stourbridge Grove Allotments
3.47
117
A022
Victoria Homes
0.23
16
A023
Vinery Road Allotments
1.48
47
A024
Wenvoe Close Allotments and Paddock
0.87
16
Total
41.36
1340.25
Allotment sites in South Cambridgeshire
A telephone questionnaire survey was undertaken of allotment sites in South
Cambridgeshire which are close to the city boundary, in order to determine
whether the demand for allotments in Cambridge is being met by allotment
sites located in settlements close to the City boundary. The sites are shown in
Map 2.
Map 2: Allotment Sites in South Cambridgeshire
Ashley Godfrey Associates
40
Review of Allotment Provision
Ashley Godfrey Associates
41
Review of Allotment Provision
Enquiries were made of the managing agents of these sites as to the current
policy for letting plots and whether they were aware of requests from residents
of the City Council for these perimeter sites. The results are shown in Table
6.2 below.
Almost all the sites surveyed operate a policy of restricting waiting lists to local
residents although, in the case of several sites, this appears to be a recent
change in policy. None of the societies were aware of approaches being
made by City residents. Although these sites do not generally have large
numbers of people on their waiting lists, many of the sites are small so the
estimated length of waiting time for a plot can be long. Estimated waiting
times varied from 5 years in Fulbourn to no wait for the hard to let site in
Madingley. The average waiting time was reported to be around 2 to 3 years.
The sites in Fulbourn, Girton, Great Shelford (Parish Council sites), Histon
(Parish and Pauseland Charity sites), Milton and Little Shelford all restrict their
waiting lists to local residents. The sites at Coton, Fulbrooke Road, Histon and
Impington report giving priority to local residents.
One site, in Coton, has two waiting lists for parishioners and non parishioners
but the parishioners will take priority. The site at Mores Lane, Great Shelford
is owned by the local Parochial Charity which has no policy but the Trustees
would need to be consulted if a resident currently residing within the City
applied to go on the waiting list. It was not possible to ascertain the lettings
policy of the privately owned sites at Stapleford, Grantchester and Fen Ditton
and no response was received from Horningsea Parish Council so no
information has been obtained about this site.
The small site at Madingley, managed by the University Estates Department,
has 2 vacant plots which would be available to anyone but the site was
reported to be “ hard to let” due to lack of water supply, presence of mature
trees and poor access up a bank.
The site at Fulbrooke Road, owned by Grantchester Town Land Charity, has
a total area of 23 acres but not all of this is allotments. The management
objective is to use the land commercially for the benefit of the charity. The
representative reported that it would be possible to clear more land by digging
Ashley Godfrey Associates
42
Review of Allotment Provision
up bushes to create more plots. However, due to the position of the site, there
would be “trouble with the local residents” if a large number of outsiders took
on plots and caused a nuisance by bringing cars to the site. Reword this bit
The large site at Girton with 94 plots has an innovative management system.
All new plotholders are given a quarter size plot; they can apply for more
space after one year and this will be awarded if they have proved themselves
to be “good gardeners”. The committee has operated a deposit system for the
last 3 years which has proved to be successful. New tenants pay a deposit of
£50 which is forfeited if they give up their plot in a terrible condition. They may
get half or all their deposit back depending on the condition of the plot. The
deposit pays for the committee to clear the plot before it is re-let and the
system has the advantage that plot holders tend to advise the committee in
good time if they are thinking of giving up their plot rather than leaving the plot
to deteriorate.
Although all the allotment sites are located in South Cambridgeshire, the sites
at Grantchester Meadows and Fulbrooke Road lie very close to the City
Council boundary. It is reported that most of the plotholders at Grantchester
Meadows live in Newnham and that most plot holders on the Fulbrooke Road
site live in the vicinity of Fulbrooke Road. Thus the majority of the plotholders
at Grantchester Meadows and a proportion of those on the Fulbrooke Road
site live within Cambridge City Council’s administrative area.
However, apart from these two sites, there appears to be no evidence from
this survey that the surrounding sites in South Cambridgeshire are absorbing
any current demand for allotments from residents of Cambridge.15
15
The site at Histon Road is included as a Cambridge City Council site elsewhere in this
report. Although the site is located in South Cambridgeshire it is owned by Cambridge City
Council.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
43
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 6.2: Allotment Sites in South Cambridgeshire
Site Ref
AOC001
Site
Location
Coton
Ownership
Cambridge
Preservation
Society
Management
Parish Council
AOC002
Fen Ditton
Private
Not known
AOC003
Fulbourn
Parish Council
Parish Council
AOC004
AOC005
Fulbrooke
Road
Girton
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Grantchester
Town
Land Charity
Charity
Number of
Waiting list
plots
37 plots.
Letting Policy
2 waiting lists for parishioners and
non parishioners. Recent decision by
4 (2 parishioners
committee that parishioners will
and
2
non
always take priority. Site used to be
parishioners)
much bigger. Not sure whether it
could be increased again.
Parish Council does not know who
owns the site but says the allotments
are used by Fen Ditton residents and
not by City residents.
8 plots
Not known
Girton Allotment
94 plots
Society
12
Waiting list restricted to village
residents. Told will be 5 year wait. 1
local resident has plot in the city.
None
Priority given to residents in vicinity
of Fullbooke Road. The charity owns
23 acres. More allotments could be
created by land clearance but it is felt
that there would be problems with
local residents if lots of outsiders
came in.
24
Waiting list now restricted to Girton
residents. Will wait 12 + months.
New plotholders are allocated
quarter plots and are allowed more
space after one year if they prove to
be “good gardeners”. Deposit system
operated for the last 3 years. £50
deposit paid on letting which is
44
Review of Allotment Provision
repaid if allotment given up in good
condition. Has proved successful
with the advantage that those giving
up tend to tell the committee in good
time rather than letting their allotment
deteriorate.
AOC006
Grantchester
Private
Private
10 plots
Not known.
30 plots
3
Most plotholders live in Newnham;
some in Grantchester. No water on
site so must bring own water supply.
Waiting list is open to local residents
and to fellows and students of
Pembroke College living in city
centre. Those on waiting list probably
wait 2 to 3 years.
None.
Site full. No current policy. No
approach from city council residents.
Trustees would need to be consulted
if they did.
2 (for both sites)
Waiting list
residents.
restricted
to
local
restricted
to
local
AOC007
Grantchester
Meadows
Pembroke
College
AOC008
Mores
Meadow
Great
Shelford
Great Shelford
Charity
Parochial
Charities
AOC009
Walden Way
Great
Parish Council
Shelford
Parish Council
AOC010
Stonehill
Road Great Parish Council
Shelford
Parish Council
Waiting list
residents.
Parish Council
Priority to residents of Histon. One
person on waiting list is a City
Council resident but they will get no
priority. Most of those on waiting list
will get allotment after 2 years
AOC011
Histon
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Parish Council
College
12 plots
20 plots
14
45
Review of Allotment Provision
AOC012
Pauseland
Allotments
Histon
Pauseland
Charity
Charity
AOC013
Horningsea
Not known
Not known
AOC014
Impington
Parish Council
Parish Council
AOC015
Madingley
Cambridge
University
Estates Dept.
AOC016
Milton
Parish Council
Parish Council
AOC017
Stapleford
AOC018
Garden
Fields, Little Parish Council
Shelford
Parish Council
AOC019
Hauxton
Not known
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Private
Not known
50 plots
16
Waiting list now restricted to Histon
and Impington residents. Most wait 2
to 2.5 years.
8 plots
6
Priority to residents of Impington
village.
5 – 6 large
None
plots
5
2 vacant plots. Site is hard to let – no
water, access up a bank and site has
mature trees. No restriction on letting
as plots have been offered locally
and not taken up.
Waiting list restricted to residents of
Milton.
Letting policy not known. Parish
Council
has
been
trying
unsuccessfully to obtain control of
this site for some time. Parish has
bought one acre of land for cemetery
use but may put 25 year lease on
this for allotments.
Carter Jonas
18
1
Site restricted to Little
residents.
Shelford
46
Review of Allotment Provision
Community Gardens and Orchards
There are three community gardens and orchards in Cambridge. These are
shown in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.3: Community Gardens and Orchards in Cambridge
SiteRef SiteName
Location
CO001
Trumpington Community Orchard Foster Road
CG001
Millennium Garden
Corner Norfolk Street and St Matthews Street
CG002
Mohila Shomity Editable Garden
Red Hen Community Centre, Northfields Avenue
See Map 3 for community gardens and orchards in Cambridge.
One example in Cambridge is the Mohila Shomity Edible Garden, which is based
at the Red Hen community centre in Kings Hedges and is designed to enable
women from an Asian background to learn how to grow their own vegetables and
to do so using organic methods.
The main aims and benefits of the garden are to:

increase awareness and develop skills relating to organic gardening and
composting

provide facilities for the production of local food

support wildlife, through organic gardening methods, planting of native
wildflower species and the provision of bird-boxes.
The garden is open to other community groups using the community centre.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
47
Review of Allotment Provision
Map 3: Community gardens and orchards in Cambridge
Ashley Godfrey Associates
48
Review of Allotment Provision
Demand for Allotments
A survey of the allotment waiting lists held by the English local authorities in 2009
found that of the 351 authorities surveyed, 346 (99%) responded, and 236 of
these held waiting list data, for a total of 3,839 allotment sites. These allotment
sites contained 156,490 plots and the waiting lists contained 76,330 people16.
This is an average of 49 people per 100 plots, although the authors of the report
on the survey caution that there are uncertainties about the data. Despite the
uncertainties, the report concludes that it is clear that there has been a large
increase in waiting lists since the 1996 survey carried out by the National Society
of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners. This survey included town and parish
councils as well as principal local authorities. It gave a total of 13,000 people
waiting for 297,000 plots (averaging 4 people per 100 plots).
In Cambridge, the survey undertaken for this report found that there are 558
people on waiting lists for allotment sites in Cambridge together with one site in
South Cambridgeshire (A012 Histon Road) and these allotment sites have
1185.25 plots17 (see Table 6.3 below).This is an average of 47 people per 100
plots although like the national report there are uncertainties about the data.
There are also uncertainties around allotment waiting list figures because of other
factors including:

People may add their names to more than one list if there are a number of
allotment sites that would be acceptable to them.

Names may be on a list for several years and a change in personal
circumstances may not be appreciated until a plot becomes available.

Long waiting lists may deter some people from applying.

Allotment Associations may close their waiting lists once they reach a
certain size.
16
A Survey of Allotment Waiting Lists in England, June 2009. Margaret Campbell and Ian
Campbell, Transition Town West Kirby in conjunction with the National Society of Allotment and
Leisure Gardeners
17 Cambridge Allotments Survey, September 2008.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
49
Review of Allotment Provision

The number of plots available may not be accurate because of differences
in the measurement of a plot size18.
These factors mean that the survey may have overestimated or underestimated
the true figure.
Nevertheless, despite any reservations about the veracity of the data, it is clear
that demand for allotments in Cambridge is very high and is comparable with the
national picture.
6.2
Quality
6.2.1 Quality Audit
Site visits were undertaken to all 24 allotment sites in Cambridge. Each site was
assessed using a quality assessment sheet which was based on the Greenspace
Scotland, guidance document ‘Greenspace Quality – a guide to assessment,
planning and strategic development’ (2008). The allotment sites are all shown on
Map 1.
This quality assessment sheet has been used to assess other types of open
space in Cambridge for Cambridge Parks - Managing the City’s Asset 2010 to
2014. The scoring sheet was adapted to make it appropriate for allotment sites. It
retained the set of criteria or indicators relating to five themes that represent what
people expect to find in quality greenspaces:
accessible and connected

attractive and appealing

bio diverse and support ecological networks

promote activity, health and well-being

have community benefits.
In addition a quantitative assessment was undertaken. This included:
18
NSALG state that the standard measure is the 10 rod plot.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
50
Review of Allotment Provision

an assessment of the level of overall cultivation of sites based on
cultivation levels of individual plots;

the proportion of plots with compost heaps;

proportion of plots with sheds and of those plots where rain water was
being collected;

the number of plots containing fruit or nut trees and the extent of mains
water supply to the site.
Other attributes considered were the extent of provision for disabled people, of
car and cycle parking spaces, number of polytunnels, any communal composting
Ashley Godfrey Associates
51
Review of Allotment Provision
facilities and communal sheds, storage facilities and noticeboards, extent of
keeping livestock and of problems with pests.
Interviews and site visits had taken place with site secretaries of the association
run sites and the council run sites had been visited with the relevant council
officers in advance of the site assessments taking place. It was not appropriate,
however, for site assessments to be undertaken with the secretaries present. As
a result, the assessments had to be based on observations as to the extent of
each plot and, particularly in the case of sites which had an irregular site layout, it
was not always possible to determine the boundaries of each individual plot. Also
an assessment had to be made as to which plots had been divided into 2 or into
smaller units. As a consequence, there is likely to be a discrepancy in some
cases as to the number of plots observed during the course of the audit and the
number of plots reported by site secretaries.
Extent of cultivation of individual plots
Each plot or half plot on every site was assessed for the level of cultivation and
the results amalgamated to give a level of cultivation for the site. Plots were
assessed as being either in full cultivation (meaning the plot had an absence of
areas of perennial weeds and appeared to be in full cultivation bearing in mind
appropriate levels of activity for the time of year) or in part cultivation ( part of the
plot appeared not to have been cultivated during the current season e.g. part
covered by perennial weeds.) Uncultivated plots showed no signs of cultivation
during the current season and were typically covered by perennial weeds and/or
brambles. Most of the part cultivated plots had relatively small areas of non
cultivation and the average level of cultivation of these part cultivated plots was
probably
Ashley Godfrey Associates
around
75%.
52
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 6.4: Cultivation Level of Sites
No of plots
in
full %
cultivation
No of plots in
part
%
cultivation
No
plots
%
uncultivated
Total plots
Auckland
Road
9
75%
2
16.70%
1
8.30%
12
Baldock
Way
71
77.20%
14
15.20%
7
7.60%
92
Bateson
Road
7
77.80%
2
22.20%
Burnside
64
59.80%
19
17.80%
24
22.40%
107
Blacklands,
102
96.20%
2
1.90%
2
1.90%
106
Elfleda Road
72
57.60%
28
22.40%
25
20%
125
Empty
Common
31
54.40%
20
35.10%
6
10.50%
57
Fairfax Road
53
76.80%
13
18.80%
3
4.30%
69
Fanshawe
Road
26
76.50%
6
17.70%
2
5.90%
34
Foster Road
81
83.50%
13
13.40%
3
3.10%
97
Hawthorn
Way
8
88.90%
1
11.10%
Histon Road
166
82.60%
26
12.90%
9
4.50%
201
Holbrooke
Road
63
64.30%
24
24.50%
11
11.20%
98
Kendal Way
4
66.70%
2
33.30%
6
Maple Close
3
75%
1
25%
4
Site
Ashley Godfrey Associates
9
9
53
Review of Allotment Provision
New Street
15
57.70%
7
26.90%
4
15.40%
26
Nuffield
Road
69
70.40%
23
23.50%
6
6.10%
98
Pakenham
Close
157
80.90%
32
16%
5
2.60%
194
Perne Road
23
92%
2
8%
Peverel
Road
11
73.30%
1
6.70%
3
20%
15
Stourbridge
Grove
95
72.50%
22
16.79%
14
10.70%
131
Victoria
Homes
15
78.3%
0
0%
1
6.25%
16
Vinery Road
27
63%
10
23%
6
14%
43
Wenvoe
Close/Arran
Close/ Pen
35
Close
94.60%
2
5.40%
Total
74.73%
272
17.05%
1192
Ashley Godfrey Associates
25
37
131
8.21%
1595
54
Review of Allotment Provision
The number of plots observed varied from the 201 on the largest site (Histon
Road) and 194 at Pakenham Close to the smallest sites which were run by
the City Council such as Maple Close with 4 plots and Kendal Way with 6
plots. The average number of plots observed per site was 69 which was the
number at Fairfax Road. However most sites were either fairly large (10 sites
had over 90 plots) or fairly small (10 sites had less than 35 plots).
The cultivation levels on most of the sites were extremely high. Sites with the
highest percentage of plots in full cultivation were the privately owned site,
Blacklands with 96.2% and the smallest single association site at Wenvoe
Close, Cherry Hinton with 94.6%. In addition, there were 5 sites with full
cultivation levels in excess of 80% ( the large sites at Histon Road, Pakenham
Close, and Foster Road and two small sites at Perne Road and Hawthorn
Way.) The average level of full cultivation based on the total number of plots
was 74.7%. Only four sites were observed to have less than 60% of plots in
full cultivation; these were the large sites at Elfleda Road and Burnside
(57.6% and 59.8% respectively), and the sites at Empty Common (54.4%)
and New Street (57.7%)
When considering the total number of uncultivated or derelict plots it should
be borne in mind that there will always be plots on sites which are in the
process of changing hands. The Allotment Societies and Cambridge City
Council institute procedures to terminate a tenancy if a plot remains
uncultivated for no good reason but this process takes a certain amount of
time, which varies according to the managing organisation. Therefore a
proportion of plots on the site which appeared to be uncultivated would be in
the process of a changeover of tenants. A previous report by Cambridge City
Council on Allotments written in 1997 (Review of Allotments) stated that a
vacancy level of 10% of plots on a site at any one time was a reasonable
level. Applying a similar logic to this strategy would indicate that a level of
10% of uncultivated plots on any site would be reasonable.
The percentage of uncultivated plots varied from none at Wenvoe Close,
Cherry Hinton to almost a quarter of all plots at Burnside (22.2%). However
most sites had a level of uncultivated plots which was considerably lower than
10%. Several of the largest sites had a proportion of uncultivated plots which
Ashley Godfrey Associates
55
Review of Allotment Provision
was less than 5% of all plots including Blacklands (1.9%), Pakenham Close
(2.6%), Foster Road (3.1%), Histon Road (4.5%) and Fairfax Road (4.3%).
Levels of uncultivated plots which were greater than 10% of all plots were
observed at Elfleda Road and Peverel Road (both with 20%), New Street
(15.4%), Vinery Road (14%); also the sites at Glebe/ Holbrook Road,
Stourbridge Grove, Empty Common all had levels of uncultivated plots
between 10 and 12%.
The average percentage of uncultivated plots on all sites based on the total
number of plots was 8.2%.
Table 6.4 above shows the results in detail.
Other facilities
Compost Heaps
Plots on each site were assessed as to whether or not compost was being
collected and the percentage of plots on each site with compost heaps was
measured. In some cases more than one plot was tenanted by the same
person so the lack of a compost heap on a plot does not necessarily mean
that the tenant does not collect his/ her own compost. However the average
collection rates on each site give an idea of the extent of sustainable practice
in the form of composting.
In addition to individual compost heaps the sites at Fairfax Road, Stourbridge
Grove and Histon Road had communal composting facilities. Also some of the
City Council run sites had communal composting for their starter plots.
The average percentage of plots with compost heaps was 61.3% or 977 plots
out of a total of 1595.
The percentage of compost heaps on the sites varied from under 40% at
Peveral Road and Burnside to 80% and over at Pakenham Close and Perne
Road. Many sites had a level which was close to the average including the
large sites at Elfleda Road, Baldock Way, Blacklands, and Histon Road.
Detailed results are shown in Table 6.5
Ashley Godfrey Associates
56
Review of Allotment Provision
Individual Sheds
Sheds provide storage for tools and add an air of permanence to a site and
provide the possibility for the collection of rainwater. The total number of plots
with sheds was observed to be 881 or 55.2% of plots. Some City Council
starter plots were provided with a communal shed. The site with the lowest
proportion of sheds was Foster Road with 18.6%. This reflected the history of
the site in that, until relatively recently when the site had been fenced and
locked, a thoroughfare ran through the site and there were significant
problems of theft and vandalism. Wenvoe Close also had a small number of
sheds (29.7%). Sites with the highest proportion of sheds were Perne Road
with 96% and Auckland Road and Burnside (75% and 72% respectively).
The quality of individual sheds was highly variable with some sheds in a semiderelict state which detracted from the visual amenity of the site. Burnside and
Elfleda Road had a relatively high proportion of sheds in poor condition.
Conversely, the sheds at Pakenham Close and Histon Road were generally
speaking of better quality.
Collection of Rainwater
The collection of rainwater is a sustainable practice which in encouraged by
the City Council and the Allotment Associations. The main vehicle for
collection of rainwater is the shed although some plots were using a
greenhouse to collect water.
In addition to individual plotholders collecting water, the communal sheds at
Nuffield Road, Foster Road and Histon Road were also used for this purpose
as was the shed for starter plot holders on Fanshawe Road.
The number of individual plots collecting rainwater was low at 307 or 19.1% of
all plots. The sites with the highest levels of rainwater collection were
Blacklands, which has no mains water supply, and where 43.4% plots employ
rainwater collection and the sites at Perne Road (48%) and Burnside (38%)
Ashley Godfrey Associates
57
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 6.5: Other Facilities on Allotment Sites
Site
Number of
plots with
compost
heaps
%
Number
of
plots
collecting
rainwater
%
Auckland Road
9
75.0%
4
33.3%
62.0%
53
57.6%
12
13.0%
3
33.3%
0
Burnside
41
38.3%
77
72.0%
41
38.3%
Blacklands,
60
56.6%
65
61.3%
46
43.4%
Elfleda Road
78
62.4%
81
64.8%
36
28.8%
Empty Common
32
57.1%
33
58.9%
4
7.1%
Fairfax Road
51
73.9%
33
47.8%
11
15.9%
4
11.8%
5
%
Number of
plots with
sheds
8
66.7%
Baldock Way
57
Bateson Road
6
0
17.7%
Fanshawe
Road
21
61.8%
(plus
communal
shed)
66
68.0%
18
18.6%
(plus
communal
shed)
5.2% (plus
Foster Road
Hawthorn Way
7
77.8%
2
22.2%
2
22.2%
Histon Road
119
59.2%
134
66.7%
42
20.9%
Holbrooke Road
64
65.3%
49
50.0%
9
9.2%
Kendal Way
2
33.3%
2
33.3%
0
Maple Close
3
75.0%
1
25.0%
0
New Street
10
38.5%
12
46.2%
2
Nuffield Road
67
68.4%
47
48.0%
(plus
communal
shed)
10.2%
Pakenham
Close
155
80.0%
130
67.0%
47
24.0%
Perne Road
21
84.0%
24
96.0%
12
48.0%
Peverel Road
5
33.3%
7
46.7%
2
13.3%
Stourbridge
Grove
65
49.6%
70
53.4%
24
18.3%
Victoria Homes
13
81.4%
7
43.8%
2
12.5%
Vinery Road
17
40.0%
23
54.0%
7
16.0%
Wenvoe
Close/Arran
Close/
Pen
Close
25
67.6%
11
29.7%
2
5.4%
Total
977
61.3%
881
55.2%
307
19.1%
(plus
communal
shed)
communal
shed)
7.7%
10
Fruit and Nut trees
The number of plots containing fruit trees or nut trees was observed. In
general these were apple, pear and plum trees but there were also some
Ashley Godfrey Associates
58
Review of Allotment Provision
more unusual species such as fig trees, walnut trees and a peach tree. Sites
varied greatly in this respect. Nearly half of all plots on Empty Common (46%)
contained fruit or nut trees as did over one third of plots at Nuffield Road,
Peverel Road, Perne Road and Hawthorn Way. There were far fewer fruit
trees at the sites at Foster Road, Stourbridge Grove, Blacklands and Elfleda
Road, all having less than 10% of plots with fruit trees.
A number of the sites had an orchard including Baldock Way and Histon
Road. In addition a community orchard has recently been developed on land
adjoining the Foster Road site but the management of this is separate from
that of the allotment site.
Polytunnels
There were no communal polytunnels on the allotment sites although the
Foster Road site arranged for the City Council to transport a large polytunnel
frame which was surplus to requirements and this is situated on the area of
grassland at the south end of the site. The intention was to use this as a
communal polytunnel. Unfortunately the frame turned out to be faulty so
cannot be used. However the intention is to remove it and source another at
some point.
The site with by far the largest number of polytunnels is Pakenham Close with
21 polytunnels i.e. on 11% of all plots. Elsewhere there were few – 5 at
Elfleda Road, 3 at Fairfax Road, and one on each of the Baldock Way,
Burnside and Histon Road sites.
There were, in addition, several greenhouses on the site at Pakenham Close,
some of which were large and of high quality and thus reflected considerable
financial outlay and personal commitment on behalf of the plotholders. There
were also a small number on other sites but the presence of greenhouses
was not included as part of the audit.
Keeping of livestock
Livestock, mainly in the form of chickens and bees, were allowed on some
sites but not on others. The sites at Foster Road, Burnside, Holbrook/ Glebe
and Stourbridge Grove had the greatest number of livestock. Burnside has a
specific area within its wildlife patch set aside for bees and this contains 6
Ashley Godfrey Associates
59
Review of Allotment Provision
hives; the site also has 2 plots with chickens. The Foster Road site has a
chicken co-operative based on two sites where members take it in turns to be
on duty to look after and lock up the chickens and share the eggs. Foster
Road also has 4 plots in the same area entirely given over to chickens but run
on an individual basis. This area is at the southern end of the site separated
from the main allotment site by the footpath and has no access to water
supply. The site also has 2 plots with beehives. Stourbridge Grove has 4
chicken plots and Holbrook/ Glebe Road has 2 plots with chickens and 1 with
a beehive. Members with beehives are all members of the local bee keeping
association; this association is very keen to introduce bees to allotment sites
in Cambridge.
Other facilities – Communal Sheds and Toilets
The larger Association run sites generally have a communal shed from which
a shop operates at specific times, mainly on Saturday and/ or Sunday
mornings from which members can purchase supplies at discounted rates
and may be able to obtain help and advice etc. The building is typically used
for storage of supplies sold in the shop and of tools belonging to the
Association. Some of these buildings are very large and well equipped and
may have toilets attached. Such communal buildings are present on the sites
at Nuffield Road (also with lock up sheds for plot holders’ storage of tools
attached); Histon Road and Pakenham Close. These three buildings have
been funded by payments resulting from loss of some of the site for other
uses such as housing development and all have toilets attached.
The sites at Baldock Road, Stourbridge Grove, Elfleda Road, Vinery Road
and Burnside also have communal sheds of a more modest nature and the
site at Wenvoe Close has a metal lock up shed which is less than satisfactory.
In the case of Baldock Road, Stourbridge Grove and Elfleda Road, the shed
on that site also serves the other sites within that Assocation.
Parking
None of the sites had designated cycle parking places although many
members cycle to their allotment.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
60
Review of Allotment Provision
Car parking places are present in moderate numbers at the sites at Histon
Road, Pakenham Close, Elfleda Road, Nuffield Road, Empty Common and
Stourbridge Grove; in addition small numbers of car parking spaces are
present on sites at Baldock Way, Burnside, Blacklands, Perne Road, Peveral
Road and Vinery Road. Elsewhere street parking may be accessible or there
may be no parking available.
Noticeboards
Most of the larger and medium sized sites have noticeboards and these are
important to keep members informed of relevant information about the site
and any events taking place. The noticeboards at Fairfax Road and
Stourbridge Grove were particularly impressive and informative.
Provision for Disabled People
There was virtually no specific provision for disabled people. The only site
with this was Stourbridge Grove which is home to the Romsey Raised Bed
Group and has a plot with raised beds near to the entrance which is run by
the group whose members are disabled.
Water Supply
Table 6.6 provides details of mains water supply to the allotment sites. All the
sites managed by Allotment Societies have mains water supply apart from
Histon Road, which has water pumped up from the ground. The small
Cambridge City Council managed site at Kendal Way has no water supply
and the site at Hawthorn Way is supplied by a pump from a well but this is not
an adequate supply because it dries up in summer months. In addition, the
privately owned site at Dawes Lane (Blacklands) does not have a water
supply.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
61
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 6.6 Water Supply
Name of Site
Number
Troughs
Auckland Road
2 troughs
Good
Baldock Way
6 troughs
Good
Bateson Road
1 trough
Good
Burnside
3 troughs
Poor
Blacklands,
None
Poor
Elfleda Road
14 troughs
Good
Empty Common
4 troughs
Moderate
Fairfax Road
5 troughs
Moderate
Fanshawe Road
3 troughs
Good
Foster Road
6 troughs
Moderate
Should have 8
Poor
Should have at
least 1 trough as
pump dries up in
summer.
Hawthorn Way
Pump from well
of
Rating
Comments
Should have 9
Should have 5
Histon Road
12 troughs
Good
No mains water.
May be required in
future.
Holbrooke Road
6 troughs
Moderate
Should have 10
Kendall Way
None
Poor
Should
least 1
Maple Close
1 trough
Acceptable
New Street
3 troughs
Acceptable
Nuffield Road
7 troughs
Good
Pakenham Close
10 troughs
Moderate
Perne Road
3 troughs
Good
Peverel Road
3 troughs
Good
Stourbridge Grove
9 troughs
Good
Vinery Road
3 troughs
Acceptable
Wenvoe
Close/Arran Close/ 2 troughs
Pen Close
Moderate
have
at
Should have 12
Should have 3
It was noted that some sites had a less than adequate system of water supply
and that this could be addressed by increasing the number of water troughs
(see comments in Table 7.3 above). The sites with the best provision tend to
be those sites which have been able to use the proceeds of land disposals to
improve the supply e.g. Nuffield Road and Elfleda Road. It was also noted
that, whilst Histon Road has a good supply at present, the water table is
Ashley Godfrey Associates
62
Review of Allotment Provision
falling due to the amount of housing development in the area, and that there is
likely to be a need for mains water supply in the future.
6.2.2 Quality Assessment
The quality assessment is based on the Greenspace Scotland, guidance
document ‘Greenspace Quality – a guide to assessment, planning and
strategic development’. The assessment involves making assessments of
greenspace quality by inspection of sites. The assessment establishes a
simple and consistent basis for quality assessment of sites using the following
five criteria:

accessible and well connected

attractive and appealing places

biodiverse, supporting ecological networks

active, supporting health and well being

community supported
Accessible and Well Connected
This measured how well a site was integrated into the surrounding community
and included the quality of access both to and within the site. It also included
a measure of how well the site meets the needs of people with disabilities.
The sites which scored highest were Wenvoe Close, Cherry Hinton and
Baldock Way (both 87%) and Perne Road (90%), all situated within the heart
of their communities, easily accessible and with good internal paths. Other
sites which scored highly were Fairfax Road, Glebe/ Holbrook, Histon Road
and Pakenham Close.
The lowest scoring sites were Auckland Road and Empty Common.
Most sites scored poorly for their approach to meeting the needs of disabled
people; only those with good internal pathworks such as Nuffield Road and
Histon Road scored well as did the site at Stourbridge Grove for the initiative
with raised beds for a local group of disabled people.
Attractive and Appealing Places
Ashley Godfrey Associates
63
Review of Allotment Provision
This section could be considered to cover the most pertinent attributes which
are relevant to allotment holders. Included are measures of attractiveness and
peacefulness, levels of cultivation, quality of soil, water supply and quality of
materials for fencing and communal facilities.
The highest scoring sites were those at Baldock Way, Foster Road,
Pakenham Close, Perne Road and Auckland Road (all over 80%). The sites
at Fairfax Road and Histon Road also scored very well at 75%.
There was not a great variation in the scores with the lowest scoring sites
achieving between 50 and 60%. These were Burnside, Empty Common and
the smaller sites at Bateson Road, Kendall Way and New Street
Biodiverse and supporting ecological networks
This measured the existence and quality of wildlife areas integral to or
surrounding the site, connectivity with green networks and efficiency of
resources. Sites which scored well had high proportions of composting,
rainwater collection and either designated wildlife areas or plenty of suitable
habitats for wildlife.
The best sites were Blacklands, Empty Common, Stourbridge Grove and
Fairfax Road. (all scoring 80%). Many sites did not score particularly well, the
lowest scoring sites being the small sites at Kendal Way and Bateson Road
with necessarily limited opportunities for biodiversity. The lowest scoring of
the larger sites was that Elfleda Road with 47%.
Active, Supporting Health and Well being
The criteria employed in this part of the assessment included:

Opportunities for social interaction e.g. evidence from noticeboards of
communal activity, existence of communal shed.

Levels of usage.

Appropriate facilities for location and size
Most sites scored well with little variation in the scores. Sites with the highest
scores were Baldock Way, Pakenham Close and Histon Road, all with over
90%.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
64
Review of Allotment Provision
Community Supported
This included measures of involvement of plotholders in the management of
the site, whether the site felt safe and welcoming and had good levels of
natural surveillance and apparent levels of anti social behaviour affecting the
site.
There was much variation in scores; sites with the highest scores were those
at Wenvoe Close, Fairfax Road, Vinery Road and Maple Close all over 90%.
Sites at the lower end of the scores were Nuffield Road, Elfleda Road,
Burnside and Histon Road as well as some of the smaller Council run sites
where plot holders necessarily have no say in the management.
Overall Scores
When the scores for all the sections above are aggregated to form a total
score for each site there is wide variation in the scores. The two sites with the
highest overall scores are Baldock Way, Fairfax Road and Foster Road and
Wenvoe Close – all with over 70%. Three sites scored just under this at 70% they were Pakenham Close, Perne Road and Histon Road,
The larger sites which scored lowest were Burnside and Elfleda Road with
53% and 55% respectively. Empty Common also scored 53% and smaller
City Council run sites with the lowest scores were Bateson Road, and Kendal
Way both with scores of less than 50%. Overall audit scores are shown in
Table 6.7 below. Scores for the five themes are shown in Table 6.8.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
65
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 6.7 Overall Audit Scores
Allotment Site
Potential Score
Auckland Road
Baldock Way
Bateson Road
Burnside
Blacklands,
Elfleda Road
Empty Common
Fairfax Road
Fanshawe Road
Foster Road
Hawthorn Way
Histon Road
Holbrooke Road
Kendall Way
Maple Close
New Street
Nuffield Road
Pakenham Close
Perne Road
Peverel Close
Stourbridge
Grove
Victoria Homes
Vinery Road
Wenvoe
Close/Arran
Close/ Pen Close
Accessible and
well connected
30
14
26
16
17
21
19
15
24
23
23
20
24
24
16
22
16
21
24
27
23
Attractive and
Biodiverse,
appealing
40
15
32
11
25
10
12
5
16
10
15
12
19
7
16
12
22
12
22
8
24
11
16
10
25
10
17
10
13
5
22
3
17
8
23
9
23
9
22
9
19
8
Supporting
health
and well being
15
12
14
12
9
12
11
9
12
13
13
12
14
11
9
13
11
12
14
13
9
Community
supported
20
9
15
13
11
16
10
12
18
10
15
13
11
16
11
15
12
11
14
13
13
19
21
12
12
24
22
30
18
9
8
26
20
10
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Total
%
120
78
90
58
63
76
66
64
88
76
86
71
84
78
54
75
64
76
84
84
72
65.0%
75.0%
48.3%
52.5%
63.3%
55.0%
53.3%
73.3%
63.3%
71.7%
59.2%
70.0%
65.0%
45.0%
62.5%
53.3%
63.3%
70.0%
70.0%
60.0%
12
76
63.3%
13
12
18
18
94
78
62.7%
65.0%
12
18
86
71.7%
66
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 6.8: Audit Scores for Individual Themes.
Allotment Site
Biodiverse,
Accessible
and Attractive
and supporting
well connected
appealing places
ecological
networks
46.7%
80.0%
73.3%
86.7%
87.5%
66.7%
53.3%
54.3%
33.3%
56.7%
60.0%
66.7%
70.0%
71.4%
80.0%
63.3%
62.5%
46.7%
50.0%
57.5%
80.0%
80.0%
75.0%
80.0%
76.7%
70.0%
53.3%
76.7%
80.0%
73.3%
66.7%
74.3%
66.7%
80.0%
75.0%
66.7%
80.0%
65.0%
66.7%
64.0%
54.3%
33.3%
73.3%
72.5%
60.0%
53.3%
60.0%
53.3%
70.0%
72.5%
60.0%
80.0%
80.0%
60.0%
90.0%
77.5%
60.0%
76.7%
67.5%
53.3%
63.3%
70.0%
80.0%
80.0%
75.0%
60.0%
73.3%
62.5%
53.3%
Auckland Road
Baldock Way
Bateson Road
Burnside
Blacklands,
Elfleda Road
Empty Common
Fairfax Road
Fanshawe Road
Foster Road
Hawthorn Way
Histon Road
Holbrooke Road
Kendall Way
Maple Close
New Street
Nuffield Road
Pakenham Close
Perne Road
Peverel Close
Stourbridge Grove
Victoria Homes
Vinery Road
Wenvoe
Close/Arran
86.7%
Close/ Pen Close
Ashley Godfrey Associates
72.5%
66.7%
Active, supporting
Community
health and well
supported
being
80.0%
93.3%
80.0%
60.0%
80.0%
73.3%
60.0%
80.0%
86.7%
86.7%
80.0%
93.3%
73.3%
60.0%
86.7%
73.3%
80.0%
93.3%
86.7%
60.0%
80.0%
86.7%
80.0%
45.0%
75.0%
65.0%
55.0%
80.0%
50.0%
60.0%
90.0%
50.0%
75.0%
86.7%
55.0%
80.0%
73.3%
100.0%
80.0%
55.0%
70.0%
65.0%
65.0%
60.0%
90.0%
90.0%
80.0%
90.0%
67
Review of Allotment Provision
6.2.4 Survey of Plotholders
Introduction
A questionnaire survey of all plotholders was undertaken in Cambridge both on the
City Council, Association and Privately run allotment sites.
The questionnaire covered four aspects:

The allotment – including size of plot, length of time of waiting list, how long
allotment has been held and method and ease of access to site.

How the allotment is used – how often it is visited and for how long, crops
grown and methods of cultivation

The allotment facilities – respondent’s views on the facilities on the site and
relative importance of different facilities to them.

Monitoring information – age and sex, occupation, sexuality and ethnicity of
respondent.
See Appendix X for copy of questionnaire.
Method of distribution
Meetings were held with all the secretaries of the Association run and privately
owned allotments and their co-operation sought in the distribution of questionnaires
to all their members. Associations all proved very willing to assist but records of
members names and addresses were held in different forms by different
Associations making a standard method of distribution impossible.
Some Associations had computerized records so were able to provide a database
which was used for addressing envelopes and then discarded; others were given
envelopes and were able to attach computerized labels themselves. One
Association, Histon Road did not have the data in electronic form so the committee
addressed the envelopes by hand. Other Associations, notably Pakenham Close and
Nuffield Road, took on the responsibility of hand delivering questionnaires to all their
members.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
68
Review of Allotment Provision
Most Allotment Associations covering more than one site had a separate database
for each site so these could be treated separately; others, namely Rock and Whitehill
Societies had a combined database so responses have not been separated by site.
The City Council had a database of all the Allotment holders and this was used to
generate address labels for their tenants. In view of the very small sample sizes of
some of these sites, the results of all City Council sites have been combined.
Response Rates
Table 6.9 shows the response rates
Table 6.9: Response rates
Questionnaires
returned to date
% return
Council
managed
139
allotments
82
59.0%
Foster Road
85
60
70.6%
Fairfax Road
60
41
68.3%
Stourbridge Grove
92
58
63.0%
Blacklands
86
65
75.6%
Vinery Road
36
27
75.0%
Burnside
84
42
50.0%
Cherry Hinton
25
16
64.0%
Nuffield Road
74
29
39.0%
Pakenham Close
157
75
47.8%
Whitehill
120
60
50.0%
Histon Road
155
126
81.3%
Rock AS
191
119
62.3%
Total
1304
800
61.4%
Allotment site
Questionnaires
distributed
A total of 1304 questionnaires were distributed and 800 were returned giving an
overall response rate of 61.4%. This was extremely high compared with other
surveys undertaken in Cambridge and reflects the high level of interest among
Cambridge Allotment holders on the subject of allotment gardening and the supply of
allotments.
Response rates varied widely between the different Associations. The response
among Council run allotment sites was 59% which was close to the average for all
respondents. The highest response was achieved from Histon Road at 81.3% and
Ashley Godfrey Associates
69
Review of Allotment Provision
the lowest from Nuffield Road at 39%. Response rates were very good from
Blacklands and Vinery Road (both over 75%) and were relatively low from
Pakenham Close, Burnside and Whitehill. (all 50% and under). It is interesting that
the highest response rate was achieved by the Association which addressed
envelopes by hand; this represented a considerable effort and level of commitment
on behalf of the committee.
Results
Section 1 – The allotment
Length of time respondents have had their allotment?
More than half of all allotment holders had had their allotments for over five years
(53%) with more then a quarter having them for over 15 years. Just under half had
had them for less than 5 years with just over one fifth having had one for less than
two years.
There was wide variation between the different sites. The sites with the highest
proportion of long standing tenants were Blacklands and the City Council sites.
Approaching half of all tenants (41%) on Blacklands had been there for 15 years or
more and this applied to 37% of the City Council’s tenants.
By contrast the sites with the highest proportion of new members were Burnside,
Elfleda Road and Stourbridge Grove, all with a third or more taking on plots within
the last 2 years. The sites with the lowest proportion of people with a plot for more
than 15 years were Foster Road, Cherry Hinton and Stourbridge Grove, all with less
than 13%.
These figures show that a high proportion of Cambridge Allotment holders are very
long standing. This would indicate that there is not much ‘movement’ in the turnover
of plots thereby affecting the length of time people on a waiting list are likely to have
to wait before being offered a plot.
How respondents know about the waiting list.
Just over two fifths obtained information about the waiting list from an existing
allotment holder and just under one third because they lived nearby. Information
from the Council and the internet was much less significant overall. The proportion
Ashley Godfrey Associates
70
Review of Allotment Provision
using Council information, not surprisingly, was highest among Council tenants
(21%) and the internet as a source of information more significant for those on
Fairfax Road, Stourbridge Grove and Burnside than on other sites. Existing allotment
holders were more important on Blacklands (57%) and living nearby was the major
factor on Foster Road (42%).
Length of time on the waiting list
The secretaries of most the Allotment Associations reported that the waiting lists
really took off about 2 years ago and this is borne out by the questionnaire results.
The substantial majority of plotholders waited less than a year for their plots (84%)
and 9% waited between one and two years. The City Council’s were the only sites
where people had waited over 4 years. Over half of their tenants had waited over 3
years (56%) and nearly 20% had waited over 5 years.
Size of your allotments?
Over half of all plot holders (56%) report having a full size plot and a third have a half
size plot (32%). Just under 5% have a starter plot. There were wide variations
between sites in these results with over 80% on Whitehill having a 10 pole plot
compared with 26% on Foster Road. Three quarters of plot holders at the Vinery
Road/ Burnside Association have a full size plot, as do two thirds of plotholders on
Histon Road and Stourbridge Grove. Less than half of all tenants have a full size plot
on the Fairfax Road, Blacklands and the City Council sites.
With regard to half size plots, the highest proportions are on Rock Allotment Society
and Foster Road (both over 40%). Starter plots are not much in evidence except on
Cherry Hinton, Foster Road and City Council sites, but here they are much in
evidence being held by just under one third of plotholders at Cherry Hinton, 19% at
Foster Road and 11% on the City Council plots.
How plotholders get to their allotment
Those who used more than one method of transport indicated both so there were
multiple responses to this question. Just under half reported that they cycle to their
plot (48%) and just over two fifths walk (42%). Only 3 respondents used public
transport. Over one quarter come by car (28%) but for many of these this is not the
Ashley Godfrey Associates
71
Review of Allotment Provision
sole method of transport. Some report traveling by car when they have a lot to carry
or are bringing children but that otherwise they would walk or cycle.
The sites with the highest proportion of walkers are those at Fairfax Road and Vinery
Road (both over 70%). Highest proportion of cyclists are on Nuffield Road, followed
by Blacklands and Pakenham Close (all over 60%). Sites with the highest proportion
of car users are Whitehill and Histon Road.
Length of travel time to allotment.
Four fifths of plots holders take less than 10 minutes to get to their allotment, with
equal proportions taking less than 5 minutes and between 5 and 9 minutes. (39%).
Just under two fifths take 10 to 15 minutes (19%) and only 4% have a travel time
over 15 minutes. Again there were a few multiple responses where people used
more than one method of travel.
The site with the most local people with regard to travel time is Fairfax Road, with
just under two thirds taking less than 5 minutes and no-one traveling for more than
15 minutes. Sites with the greatest numbers taking over 10 minutes to travel to the
site were Nuffield Road followed by Burnside (45% and 37% respectively).
The questionnaire asked respondents for their postcode. Most people provided this
information although some only provided part of the postcode. The postcodes have
been used to develop maps showing the catchment areas of each site or group of
sites. These maps can be found in Appendix X. The maps identify the ‘effective
catchment’ for each site. An effective catchment is based on the distance travelled
by 75% of users. However, because some postcodes did not match with the
Ordnance Survey data or were only partial postcodes these could not be mapped
and were therefore allotted to the 25% outside the ‘effective catchment’. Map 4
shows the ‘effective catchment areas’ of all the allotment sites in Cambridge.
Problems getting to the site
Almost all respondents (95%) have no problems getting to their allotment site. Of
those that did the highest proportion were on Stourbridge Grove.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
72
Review of Allotment Provision
Map 4: Effective Catchment Areas of Cambridge Allotments
Ashley Godfrey Associates
73
Review of Allotment Provision
Whether the site was first choice.
Again nearly all respondents indicated that they had a plot on their first choice of
site. (91%). Those who were not on the first choice of site were mainly in
Associations with one site more popular than other(s) such as Rock Association,
Vinery/Burnside and Fairfax/Stourbridge Grove. Over a third of plot holders on
Stourbridge Grove were not on their first choice of site as were 20% on Burnside
and 10% on Rock.
Section 2 – How the allotment is used
How often the allotment is visited in summer.
Two thirds of respondents state that they visit their allotment two or three times a
week in the summer months. A further 22% visit every day. Thus almost 90 %
report visited their allotments at least three times a week in summer. The sites
with the highest proportions visiting every day are Pakenham Close and Nuffield
Road (around one third). However these sites had among the lowest response
rates so samples could be less reliable, in that the keener gardeners are those
who have completed the questionnaires.
Length of visits during summer months
Half the respondents reported visiting for on average between one and two
hours. A further one third report visiting between two and three hours.
How often the allotment is visited during winter
On average people visit less often during the winter with only 6% visiting every
day. However 42% report visiting two or three times a week and a further third
visit once a week meaning that 82% report that they visit once a week or more
often in winter.
Length of visit during winter
One fifth report visiting for one hour or less on average. Over half say they visit
for between one and two hours and a further fifth visit for two to three hours.
Who visits the site
Ashley Godfrey Associates
74
Review of Allotment Provision
Respondents were asked if they are usually accompanied by anyone when they
visit their allotment. Multiple responses were given; one person ticked all the
categories.
Four fifths of respondents indicated that they visited their allotment alone. One
third visit with a partner and 13% visit with children. Other family and friends
accompany 8% and 9% respectively.
Results were broadly similar for the different societies except for Cherry Hinton
where only 44% visit alone and the high proportion of children visiting the site
Vinery Road (one third of plot holders).
Crops grown on allotments
Virtually every respondent reported growing vegetables (99%) and, perhaps
more surprisingly, four fifths grow fruit and one half grow flowers. Results were
fairly consistent across sites, but there was less flower growing at Whitehill and
Cherry Hinton and particularly high levels of fruit growing at Pakenham Close.
Change of use over the years
When asked if their use had changed over the years 90% of all plotholders
reported no change. Lowest rates of change were found on Whitehill and most
change had occurred at Cherry Hinton.
Organic Cultivation
Over three quarters of respondents claimed to employ organic methods and
there was a great level of consistency between sites.
Keeping of Livestock
When asked whether they kept livestock, over 97% of plotholders responded in
the negative and on many sites the level was 100% because livestock are either
not permitted or actively discouraged.
The sites with the highest levels of positive response were Foster Road and
Vinery Road.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
75
Review of Allotment Provision
Opinions on what respondents would like to be allowed to grow or keep on their
plot.
Plotholders were asked whether there were items which they wished to grow or
keep which they were not able to do at present.
Four fifths or 80% replied in the negative and one fifth said they would like to
keep or grow items which they were not able to. Responses did not vary greatly
from site to site but higher than average levels were reported on sites at
Stourbridge Grove, Pakenham Close, Foster Road and on City Council plots.
Reasons for these responses varied from sites where no livestock is permitted
such as Pakenham Close and City Council sites to sites with large numbers of
small plots, such as at Foster Road and City Council starter plots to sites with
severe problems with pests.
Composting of green waste.
When asked whether they composted green waste on their plot 90% responded
in the affirmative and only 10% said they did not. All the respondents on Cherry
Hinton had a compost heap but 16% plotholders on both Whitehill and
Blacklands said they did not.
Communal Composting
When asked whether the site had communal composting facilities, large numbers
reported these at Faifax Road, Histon Road and Stourbridge Grove. A small
amount of communal composting was reported on other sites.
When asked whether they used the communal composts two thirds of those on
Fairfax Road said they did but only 45% reported doing so at Histon Road and
42% at Stourbridge Grove.
Collection of Rainwater
Just over half of all plotholders reported collecting rainwater. This figure was 78%
on Burnside with poor level of water supply and Blacklands with no water supply.
This does not correalate with the findings of the audit where relatively low levels
of water collections were observed. However the difference could be due to a
Ashley Godfrey Associates
76
Review of Allotment Provision
higher proportion of those collecting water responding to the questionnaire or
because some people collect mains water in a storage butt and may have misinterpreted the question.
Section 3 – Allotment Facilities
Quality of soil
Plotholders were asked to rate the quality of soil on the site. Almost 60% felt that
this was either good or very good and only 7% felt it to be below average or poor.
There was wide variation between sites with over three quarters of Blacklands
respondents declaring the soil to be very good and no-one rating it less than
good to 12% of those on Burnside declaring the soil to be poor. Sites where over
three quarters reported the soil to be good or very good were Pakenham Close,
Histon Road,and Nuffield Road.
Access to Water
Just under two fifths of respondents thought the water supply was very good and
two fifths thought it was good, demonstrating a relatively high level of satifaction.
Blacklands was the exception with no mains water supply, with 50% declaring the
supply to be poor. Highest levels of satisfaction were expressed by plotholders at
Nuffield Road where 71 % declared it to be excellent and over half those on
Pakenham Close and Whitehill thought the supply excellent. At the other end of
the scale the supply at Burnside was rated as average to poor by two thirds of
plotholders.
There were also slightly higher than average levels of dissatisfaction at Histon
Road.
Quality of the Paths
Two thirds of respondents considered the quality to be good or excellent and only
7.5 % thought they were below average or poor. Sites with quality rated well
above average were Histon Road, Pakenham Close and Nuffield Road. Sites
with lower than average ratings were Whitehill, Cherry Hinton and the City
Council sites.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
77
Review of Allotment Provision
Quality of the Security Arrangements
There was less overall satisfaction with the security arrangements with half
respondents rating them as good or excellent and half rating them as average or
worse. The sites with the highest ratings for poor security were Blacklands,
which is unfenced, and the City Council sites with 46% and 40% respectively.
The sites with the highest scores were Cherry Hinton, Nuffield Road, Histon
Road and Pakenham Close.
The relative importance of different facilities.
Respondents were asked to rate the presence of various facilities and attributes
as being either important, neutral or unimportant to them.
Facilities or attributes of the greatest importance to the allotment holders were
water troughs, easy access to the site and good access within the site and good
security ( all considered important by over 80%). Moderately important facilities
were storage for tools and composting,(considered important by over two thirds)
followed by a site shop and noticeboard, considered important by over 60%.
Skips were important to 58% of respondents.
At the other end of the scale there was little interest in a communal shed. Cycle
parking and car parking were important to 32% and 44% respectively.
Problems with pests and wildlife.
Respondents were asked whether they had problems with pests or wildlife and a
small majority did. However most of these were pests common to all gardeners
such as pigeons. Some sites had problems with rats, foxes and muntjac deer.
Previous experience of gardening
Over two thirds of respondents had previous experience of gardening before they
took on their allotment and just under one third had no experience. The site with
members with the least experience was Cherry Hinton followed by Pakenham
Close.
Requirement for more information on allotment gardening
Ashley Godfrey Associates
78
Review of Allotment Provision
Plot holders were asked whether they would like more information about
gardening. Just over half (56%) said they would not and just under half would like
this. When those were asked in what form they would like this the majority would
like it on noticeboards (55%) and via the internet (50%).
Section Four - Equalities and Monitoring Sheet
The majority of respondents completed this although it was not obligatory.
Age of plotholders.
Just over one third of respondents were aged 60 to 74 and just under one third
were aged 45 to 59. Only 24% were aged 44 and below and only 3 respondents
were below the age of 24 (0.4%) Sites with higher proportions of younger people
were Fairfax Road, Stourbridge Grove and Burnside and Foster Road. Nearly
half of Stourbridge Grove respondents were under 44.
Just under half of all respondents were over age 60 (45%). Sites with greater
proportions than average of older people were Blacklands and Nuffield Road with
two thirds aged over 60, and to a lesser extent Rock allotment Society,
Pakenham close and Histon Road.
Sex of Plotholders
Just over half of respondents were male (55%) and 45% were female. Plots with
more females than males were Stourbridge Grove and Fairfax Road with 64%
and 59% respectively. There were a small number of multiple responses where
men and women shared a plot.
Employment Situation
Half of respondents were in full-time employment and the other large group were
retired people making up 35%. No other groups featured highly.
Disability
12.3% declared themselves to have a disability. Three quarters of those with a
declared disability felt that this did not limit their activities in any way.
Sexuality
Ashley Godfrey Associates
79
Review of Allotment Provision
83% declared themselves to be heterosexual with a further 15% preferring not to
say. There were very small numbers defining themselves as gay, lesbian or
bisexual.
Ethnicity
86% stated they were British. 9.5% were other white background and 1.8% were
Chinese. This would seem to be an under representation of ethnic minority
groups compared with information supplied by site secretaries. By how much –
what was the data provided by secretaries?
Detailed results can be found in Appendix B.
6.3
Accessibility
The questionnaire survey asked respondent to provide their postcode. The maps
based on this data (see Appendix D) indicate the ‘effective catchment’ for each
site. Map 4 shows the ‘effective catchment areas’ of all the allotment sites in
Cambridge together with the two allotment sites in South Cambridgeshire that
accommodate residents who live within the City boundary. A buffer area based
on the maximum distance of each ‘effective catchment area’ for each site was
plotted to establish whether there are any areas in Cambridge that lie outside the
‘effective catchment areas. Map 5 clearly demonstrates that everyone living
within the City Council boundary lives within a ‘reasonable’ distance form an
allotment site.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
80
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 6.10: The Catchment Areas for Allotments Sites in Cambridge
Site Ref
Site name
No.
Area (Hectares)
Maximum
Catchment
Distance
(Metres)
A001
Auckland Road Allotments
0.3
1614
A002
Baldock Way Allotments
1.5
4202
A003
Bateson Road
0.12
0
A004
Burnside Allotments
3.34
3000
A005
Dawes Lane Allotments
2.21
3060
A006
Elfleda Road Allotments
4.29
2780
A007
Empty Common Allotment
1.65
3910
A008
Fairfax Road Allotments
1.64
2958
A009
Fanshawe Road Allotments
0.62
2793
A010
Foster Road Allotments
2.08
2780
A011
Hawthorn Way
0.15
0
A012
Histon Road
5.94
3830
A013
Holbrooke Road Allotments
2.34
2221
A014
Kendal Way
0.1
229.5
A015
Mapel Close
0.06
451.2
A016
New Street Allotments
0.47
948.7
A017
Nuffield Road Allotments
2.58
2425
A018
Pakenham Close Allotments
4.84
2137
A019
Perne Road Allotments
0.68
939.3
A020
Peverel Road
0.4
3648
A021
Stourbridge Grove Allotments
3.47
3551
A022
Victoria Homes
0.23
0
A023
Vinery Road Allotments
1.48
2300
A024
Wenvoe
Paddock
0.87
855.9
AOC00
4
Fulbrooke Road
400
AOC00
7
Grantchester Meadows
1440
Close
Allotments
and
Median Maximum
2362.5
Distance
There was no survey data for the sites at Bateson Road, Victoria Homes and
Hawthorn Way.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
81
Review of Allotment Provision
Map 5: Allotment Catchment Areas
Ashley Godfrey Associates
82
Review of Allotment Provision
7.
Resources and Funding
Management
Interviews were held with secretaries of the Allotment Associations and with
the Council Officers responsible for managing the Council run Allotment sites.
Topics covered included details of number of plots, rental of plots and waiting
list numbers and policies; management arrangements, regulations for use of
plots and procedures for eviction; changes in compostion of allotment holders
and trends in use of allotments and future aspirations for the site.
Table 7.1 below gives details of the management and size of allotment sites,
numbers of plots details of waiting lists and rental for plots.
Ownership and Management
Cambridge City Council owns 22 allotment sites and manages 8 sites directly;
these are mainly the smaller sites such as Kendal Way and Bateson Road
with 8 and 6 plots respectively but also the larger sites such as Empty
Common with 56 plots and New Street with 29. The remaining 14 sites are
managed by 9 Allotment Societies. The Rock Allotment Society manages
three sites at Baldock Road, Holbrook Road and Perne Road. Whitehill
Allotment Society manages the large site at Elfleda Road and the small site at
Peveral Road. Romsey Town and District Gardening Society manages the
sites at Fairfax Road and Stourbridge Grove. Vinery Road Allotments Society
manages the sites at Vinery Road and Burnside. Societies managing one site
are Nuffield Road Allotment Society (Nuffield Road site); Old Chesterton
Allotment Society (Pakenham Close); New Chesterton Allotment Society
(Histon Road); Trumpington Allotment Society (Foster Road) and Cherry
Hinton Allotment Society ( Wenvoe Close).
There are 2 privately owned sites situated within the Cambridge City Council
boundary. The site at Dawes Lane is owned by Peterhouse College and
managed by Blacklands Allotments Association. The remaining site is Victoria
Homes in Victoria Road and is attached to the Almshouses Allotments are
only available to residents of the Almshouses or to those with a close
connection with the Almshouses.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
83
Review of Allotment Provision
Table 7.1: Allotment Sites – Management, Number of Plots, Waiting Lists and Rents
Number of
Plots
(10
pole
equivalent)
Total number
of
plots
(including
Waiting list
half, quarter
and
starter
plots)
Vacancies
Annual
rent for 10
pole plot
12
15
no
£34
no
£29
4
no
£34
Site Ref. No.
Site name
Area
Managed By
(Hectares
A001
Auckland
Road
Allotments
0.3
A002
Baldock Way
1.5
Allotments
Rock
Society
A003
Bateson Road
0.12
Cambridge
Council
A004
Burnside
Allotments
3.34
Vinery
Road
Allotments Society
98
15
no
£23
A005
Dawes Lane
2.21
Allotments
Blacklands
Allotments Society
72
14
no
undisclosed
A006
Elfleda Road
4.29
Allotments
Whitehill Allotment
140
Society
156
none
Yes
£18.50
A007
Empty
Common
Allotment
Cambridge
Council
56
85
no
£34
A008
Fairfax Road
1.64
Allotments
Romsey Town and
District Gardening 58.5
Society
77
40
no
£22
A009
Fanshawe
Road
Cambridge
Council
38
22
no
£34
Ashley Godfrey Associates
1.65
0.62
Cambridge
Council
City
Allotment
City
City
City
40 +
sites)
56
4
47
29
57
6
(for
3
84
Review of Allotment Provision
Allotments
A010
Foster Road
2.08
Allotments
Trumpington
Allotment Society
59.25
115
27
no
£28
A011
Hawthorn
Way
0.15
Cambridge
Council
5
11
9
no
£34
A012
Histon Road
5.94
New
Chesterton
191
Allotment Society
237
40
no
£21
A013
Holbrooke
Road
Allotments
2.34
Rock
Society
see above
no
£29
A014
Kendal Way
0.1
Cambridge
Council
City
A015
Maple Close
0.06
Cambridge
Council
City
A016
New
Street
0.47
Allotments
Cambridge
Council
City
A017
City
Allotment
85.5
3
8
5
no
£34
2
5
2
no
£34
18
29
48
no
£34
Nuffield Road
2.58
Allotments
Nuffield
Road
66
Allotment Society
77
38
no
£22
A018
Pakenham
Close
Allotments
Old
Chesterton
Allotment Society 159
Ltd.
180
102
no
£24
A019
Perne Road
0.68
Allotments
Rock
Society
see above
no
£29
A020
Peverel Road
0.4
Whitehill Allotment
16
Society
none
no
£18.50
A021
Stourbridge
Grove
3.47
Romsey Town and 117
District Gardening
7
no
£22
Ashley Godfrey Associates
4.84
Allotment
23
16
85
Review of Allotment Provision
Allotments
A022
Victoria
Homes
A023
A024
Society
Victoria Homes
16
Vinery Road
1.48
Allotments
Vinery
Road
Allotments Society
47
Wenvoe Close
0.87
Allotments
and Paddock
Cherry
Allotment
Society
Ashley Godfrey Associates
0.23
Hinton
Garden 16
no
30
10
no
£23
20
no
£59.60
86
Review of Allotment Provision
Size of Sites
Table 7.1 above shows the numbers of plots at each site measured both as 10
pole equivalents and actual number of plots where this information is available.
Sites vary greatly in size with the largest site being Histon Road with 191 ten pole
plots. Other large sites are Pakenham Close (159 plots), Elfleda Road (140 plots)
and Stourbridge Grove (117 plots). The smallest sites are managed directly by
the City Council; the smallest Association run sites are Wenvoe Close, Cherry
Hinton and Peverel Road (both with 16 plots).
Waiting Lists
The site at Elfleda Road is the only site with vacant plots available for rent. The
other sites have waiting lists, some of which are extremely large. The site with
the largest number on the list is Pakenham Close with 102 names. Council Sites
with the largest waiting lists are Empty Common (85 names) and Auckland Road
(57 names).
The waiting list for sites directly managed by the Council is computerised so that
it is not possible for the same person to go on the waiting list for more than one of
these sites. The website gives each applicant a unique number and shows those
numbers which are next in line to obtain a plot on each of the sites.
Waiting lists policies of the Societies varies. The Pakenham Close list is only
open to applicants living north of the river and is now closed with 102 names. The
waiting list for Nuffield Road stands at 38 and will close on reaching 40. Cherry
Hinton Society restricts its waiting list to those living in the vicinity. Blacklands
reports that its waiting list is restricted to local people. The Whitehill Association
has no policy to restrict the waiting list and will take anyone, even those living
outside the City Boundary but this site has vacant plots at present. Most of the
Societies felt it was unlikely that people on their waiting lists were also on another
list because the people on the lists were usually very local but there is no
mechanism to prevent people entering their names on more than one list.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
87
Review of Allotment Provision
Some societies, such a Cherry Hinton, contact those on the waiting list once a
year to establish that they are still interested. Others, such as Fairfax Road,
contact people who are near the top of the waiting list. This avoids the problem
experienced at Stourbridge Grove where some people at the top of the list could
not be contacted when a plot became available because they had moved away.
The societies all expressed the view that they wished to remain in control of their
own waiting lists and did not wish to see this managed centrally.
Rental for Plots
Plotholders on sites managed by the City Council pay £34 per year for a 10 pole
plot. Rents for plots on sites managed by the Societies include an affiliation fee
and payment for water supply except for those sites with no mains water supply.
Rents vary from the lowest charged by Whitehill Society at £18.50 for a 10 pole
plot to the most expensive at Cherry Hinton Society which charges £3.20 per
pole plus £2 per pole for water making a total of £59.60 for a 10 pole plot
including affiliation fees. The majority of Societies charge between £22 and £24
for a full size plot with proportionately lower rentals for smaller plots. Several
societies operate a concessions system, such as Rock Society, whereas others,
such as Histon Road, charge everyone the same amount.
Size of plots
Cambridge City Council no longer lets out 10 pole (250 square metres) or 5 pole
(125 square metre) plots to new plot holders. Plots are restricted to either 25 or
50 square metres in size in order to “conserve space and meet demand”. These
are named “starter plots” and the City Council website states that these are -:
“ideal for 'square-foot gardening', where each square foot of ground is for a
different vegetable, fruit, or herb, planted in quantities that you'll actually use.
The long, labour-intensive rows of a traditional allotment, which require
thinning, weeding and maintaining over the growing season, are no longer
needed.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
88
Review of Allotment Provision
Small-square gardening promotes planting only what you use, which means
watering less and less wasted space in the bed.”
The City Council has managed to reduce numbers on the waiting lists
considerably by employing starter plots.
Most of the Allotment Societies have split some of their 10 pole plots into two 5
pole plots and some have introduced plots smaller than 5 poles.
New tenants at Histon Road, and the Vinery Road and Rock Societies are only
likely to be offered a half size (5 pole) plot. The Fairfax Road site runs 2 waiting
lists – one for full size and one for half size plots. This society (Romsey) is will not
split up more plots because there are not enough full size plots to meet demand
from those at the top of the waiting list. The Cherry Hinton Society secretary felt
that “people don’t want 10 pole plots” but they operate a small site with 30 plots
on a site which is the size of 16 full size allotments.
Some Societies have a small number of plots which are less than 5 poles in size,
usually quarter size plots, but these are almost always the result of change of
circumstances of an existing tenant, who found themselves unable to manage a
larger plot due to personal circumstances.
There was great suspicion amongst virtually all the Association secretaries of the
City Council’s policy of offering starter plots. It was felt that this was being done
to reduce the demand as expressed by waiting list numbers rather than make
efforts to secure more allotments to meet that demand. The secretary at Histon
Road felt that quarter size plots are too restrictive – “ a starter plot is not a plot”.
The secretary of Whitehill Society felt that “starter plots are hopeless – too
intensive – crop rotation is not possible and this destroys the land.”
Internal and external waiting lists
Cambridge City Council offers new plotholders a starter plot but may give them
the opportunity to move up to a standard plot of 125 square metres, or 5 poles, at
a later date. Their policy on this is that if someone outgrows a starter plot and
Ashley Godfrey Associates
89
Review of Allotment Provision
would like to upgrade they are given priority over those on the waiting list, and in
turn their space would be filled by a new person waiting on the list.
Some of the Association sites offer tenants a small plot initially and allow new
plotholders extra space if they prove they can cultivate their allotment
satisfactorily after a trial period. The sites both at Foster Road and Stourbridge
Grove operate both an internal and an external waiting list. Societies tend not to
have a precise policy as to whether internal or external applicants would take
priority. The Romsey Society representative reported that “if someone were
running a good plot and wanted more space then the tendency would be to give
that person priority over someone on the external waiting list.” Policy at
Blacklands is to split 10 pole plots into 2 and offer new tenants 5 poles and to be
prepared to give that person more space – “if they had a rough plot to offer they
would give it to someone good who has a 5 pole plot.” On other sites, for
example Elfleda Road, priority would be given to the new applicant rather than
someone who already had half a plot.
The Trumpington Society encourages those who cannot manage their plots to
take on a reduced size of plot on the understanding that, if their circumstances
change and they are able to manage more space, they will be given priority for
this.
Management Structure
All the Society run allotment sites are governed by a management committee.
These vary in size from 5 at Whitehill to 12 members at the Romsey and Rock
Societies. In some cases the committee undertakes all the voluntary functions
and in others there are volunteers or helpers who are not on the committee or do
not have the status of full members. The committee at Nuffield Road comprises 8
full members and 10 helpers who look after the shop and undertake tasks such
as grass cutting. Pakenham Close has a committee of 8 plus 4 helpers who each
look after one section of the site and report to the secretary. The Romsey society
has a committee of 12 who undertake the duties of running the site between
them – they have a Chairman, Treasurer, 2 membership secretaries (for the 2
Ashley Godfrey Associates
90
Review of Allotment Provision
sites), secretary, shopkeeper and someone with responsibility for the wildlife
areas on each site. This committee meets every 6 weeks. Other committees
meet less regularly, for example, Rock Society, whose committee meets once a
year unless a special issue arises (a special meeting was held about the problem
of contaminated manure), and the Whitehill Society, which has no regular
meetings.
An innovative approach by the committee of the Cherry Hinton society was to
take steps to include a member who is Chinese in response to the high
proportion of plotholders who are Chinese. This has worked well in enabling
those allotment holders to have a voice and also to assist in communication with
the Chinese plotholders as interpretation is reported to be a problem.
Eviction Procedures
The City Council procedures for eviction are as follows:Once an allotment has been identified as being in an unsatisfactory condition a
letter is sent to the plot holder to ascertain whether there are any extenuating
circumstances. If there are no extenuating circumstances a further inspection of
the plot is undertakan and a letter sent to the plot holder giving one months
notice to improve the condition of the plot. At the end of this period a further
inspection takes place and if the plot is unchanged a letter is sent by recorded
delivery giving one months notice to quit. In addition, a notice is pinned to the
shed on the plot or attached to a stake. The plot holder is instructed to return the
keys and remove all possessions.
The Allotment Societies vary in their precise procedures for eviction but the
methods are broadly similar. All try and establish initially if there is a reason for
an unkempt or unmanaged plot. Some Associations make the initial approach
informally such as Blacklands, Vinery Road, Foster Road and Cherry Hinton.
Other Associations send a letter asking if there is a problem and encouraging the
tenant to get in touch with a member of the Committee. If the tenant has a
problem such as illness or a temporary disability or illness in the family, the
Associations would all be sympathetic and give that person extra time. Societies
Ashley Godfrey Associates
91
Review of Allotment Provision
vary as to whether they offer such a tenant practical help and this largely
depends on the availability of volunteers and communal machinery. The
Committee at Pakenham Close offers a great deal of practical help to tenants in
difficulty such as weeding, digging and regular watering. The Histon Road
Committee has a tractor and strimmer and will strip or rotavate a plot free of
charge for a tenant with difficulties. Whitehill similarly will help a tenant who is ill.
However other Societies do not have volunteers who are able to give practical
help.
Most Societies encourage a tenant who could not manage a 10 pole plot to agree
to reduce this to 5 poles.
Further letters of warning would be issued if there was no response or no activity
on the plot, the final letter being an eviction notice. Most Societies adopt the
procedure of a first warning either by letter or an informal approach followed by a
(further) letter if there was no response, followed by an eviction notice. If the
tenant refused to go either the rent would not be taken on the following rent day
or there would be a procedure for appeal to the Committee or to a full meeting of
the Societies’ members but these procedures have very rarely been invoked.
The key to successful management of a site in this respect seems to be
employment of procedures whereby the secretary or other representative keeps
a close eye on plots and is aware at an early stage if there is a problem and can
deal with this informally. Foster Road adopts such a scheme whereby the
secretary is aware of what is going on and tenants are encouraged to give up
part of their plot if they are not managing but, if their circumstances change, they
can feel confident that they will be offered more space. Similarly, Pakenham
Close, which is one of the largest sites, has representatives to cover each part of
the site who keep a close eye and report problems to the secretary with the aim
of dealing with problems at an early stage. The Vinery Road Society reported that
they inspect plots once a year in April or May and, if someone had not started to
work their plot they would be approached about this; however the Society would
not reclaim that plot until rent day the following autumn in order to ensure they
Ashley Godfrey Associates
92
Review of Allotment Provision
did not lose the rent for the year. The site at Burnside was observed to have a
large number of plots which were uncultivated or part cultivated and some of its
members felt the Committee should be taking swifter action.
Deposit Scheme
A site situated just outside the Cambridge City Council boundary, Girton
Allotment Society, has operated a deposit system for the last 3 years which has
proved to be successful. New tenants pay a deposit of £50 which is forfeited if
they give up their plot in a terrible condition. They may get half or all their deposit
back depending on the condition of the plot. The deposit pays for the committee
to clear the plot before it is re-let and the system has the advantage that plot
holders tend to advise the committee in good time if they are thinking of giving up
their plot rather than leaving the plot to deteriorate. It was reported that at least
one of the Societies within Cambridge was giving consideration to adopting this
procedure.
Condition of Plots for Re-Letting.
The City Council clears and prepares new plots for re-letting and, in many cases,
installs raised beds for the new tenant on their starter plot.
The Societies have varying procedures. Some societies clear plots to a greater or
lesser extent before re-letting. Histon Road has a tractor and rotavator available
and “always lets a clean plot”. Whitehill Society strims a plot and may apply
weedkiller before letting to the next tenant. The Romsey Society does not clear
plots before letting, due to a shortage of volunteers, but they also believe that
new tenants are less committed if the plot is cleared for them. Similarly, the
Vinery Road Society does no clearance on new plots to be let on their Burnside
site because they believe this practice increases motivation. However, many of
their plots are extremely overgrown and they report a drop out rate of 60% in the
first year of new tenancies on this site.
Rules on Carpets
Ashley Godfrey Associates
93
Review of Allotment Provision
The City Council no longer allows carpets to be used for paths or mulching on its
allotments and most Allotment Societies have similar rules. In most cases, it is
not expected that carpets already in place are removed, but no further carpets
may be used due to the problems of the chemicals used in their manufacture.
Sustainability Practices
The majority of the Societies encourage plot holders to compost their waste and
to collect rainwater if possible and most encourage organic cultivation with some
Societies discouraging the sale of chemicals. Virtually all the Association sites
have at least one wildlife area and several have plots set aside as communal
orchards.
Trends
The number of plot holders using raised beds has increased, but these tend to be
younger people rather than elderly or disabled. However, one site – Stourbridge
Grove - has the Romsey Raised Bed Project which has 10 members who are
disabled, some of whom are wheelchair users and is very successful.
Reported trends include more plot holders employing organic methods, with
many societies reporting a drop in the sale of chemicals in their shop; more
flowers being grown especially between crops; some plotholders moving away
from more traditional crops towards crops such as aubergines and melons; and
plot holders from ethnic minorities growing more unusual crops such as ground
nuts.
In terms of trends in compostion of plot holders, all Societies report a lower age
profile of members and more women, children and families on the allotments.
Many Societies report an increase in ethnic minority plot holders and those from
other cultures, for example Cherry Hinton has a high proportion of Chinese,
especially Chinese women; Fairfax Road, Vinery Road and Burnside have high
proportions of Italians; Nuffield Road has Chinese, Burmese, Vietnamese,
Spanish and Swedish members; Histon Road has members who are Chinese,
Ashley Godfrey Associates
94
Review of Allotment Provision
Polish and other Eastern Europeans and Italians and Blacklands has a number of
Asian and Dutch families.
Community Initiatives
Many societies have close links with local schools and some schools have plots
such as at Cherry Hinton, Histon Road, Blacklands and Stourbridge Grove where
a local primary school has a very successful rent – free plot and “the kids love it”.
The secretary at Foster Road considers that education and mentoring are
important. This site runs “grow your own courses” of 10 sessions with 3 inside
and 7 outside on an allotment plot allocated temporarily for the purpose. The site
hosts visits from schools and has events which involve the local community such
as open days.
Others have initiatives with local community groups such as Nuffield Road where
Cam Mind and Cambridge Ethnic Community Group have plots; Faifax Road with
the Night Shelter Project for people moving on from a homeless shelter and
Elfleda Road where the Cambridge Cyrenians have plots.
Plans and Aspirations of Societies
Societies were asked what their longer term aspirations were. The Histon Road
committee report that they will shortly be celebrating their centenary and their
ambition is to have every plot well looked after. Other Societies have ambitions
for better facilites – Cherry Hinton would like to replace their site hut which is a
metal container with a wooden building and would like a composting toilet;
Pakenham Close have aspirations for a tarmac road and Burnside would like
better fencing round the perimeter of the site. The Romsey Society has plans for
a seating and picnic area and would like to encourage more volunteers by giving
rent – free plots;
Ashley Godfrey Associates
95
Review of Allotment Provision
7.2
Funding
7.2.1 Cambridge City Council
The Active Communities Budget 2008/09 includes the cost centre for allotments
in as follows:Expenditure £14,860
Income
£9,710
Grants
Sustainable City initiative
The Sustainable City initiative offers grant funding to local groups and
organisations whose work brings environmental and community benefits .
Environmental project grants are allocated in support of specific, one-off
environmental projects that are based in or being carried out in Cambridge.
Grants are available to locally-based groups and organisations undertaking work
which give support to the environmental objectives, which include local food
growing, and which involve the community. One project that has been funded
under this initiative is the Mohila Shomity Edible Garden in Kings Hedges.
Community safety grant
Community safety grant schemes are currently available and are administered by
the community safety team. Grants are typically £500 - £2,000 and are awarded
to voluntary groups to tackle crime and disorder in their area, e.g. through
security fencing and lights, as well as activities for young people aimed at
reducing youth nuisance.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
96
Review of Allotment Provision
External Funding Sources
Local Food
Local Food19 has been developed by a consortium of 15 national environmental
organisations, and is managed on their behalf by the Royal Society of Wildlife
Trusts (RSWT).
Local Food is supported by the Big Lottery Fund's Changing Spaces programme,
and distributes grants to a variety of food related projects including allotments.
Local Food's main aim is to make locally grown food accessible and affordable to
local communities. It will achieve this by funding projects that will help achieve
one or more of the following:

to enable communities to manage land sustainably for growing food locally
to enable communities to build knowledge and understanding and to
celebrate the cultural diversity of food to stimulate local economic activity
and the development of community enterprises concerned with growing,
processing and marketing local food;

to create opportunities for learning and the development of skills through
volunteering, training and job creation to promote awareness and
understanding of the links between food and healthy lifestyles.
Local Food offers funding between £2,000 and £300,000 to projects in England.
There are two sizes of grants available:

Small Grants - £2,000 to £10,000

Main Grants - £10,0001 to £300,000
To be considered for a grant, projects must:
19

meet the aims of Local Food;

involve and show support from the local community;

demonstrate effective partnership working;
http://www.localfoodgrants.org/
Ashley Godfrey Associates
97
Review of Allotment Provision

provide good value for money;

respond to an identified need;

be able to continue beyond the life of Local Food funding.
Awards For All20
Awards for All England is a simple small grants scheme making awards of
between £300 and £10,000. The programme aims to help improve local
communities and the lives of people most in need.
Projects must meet one or more of the following outcomes:

People have better chances in life - with better access to training and
development to improve their life skills;

Stronger communities - with more active citizens working together to
tackle their problems;

Improved rural and urban environments - which communities are better
able to access and enjoy;

Healthier and more active people and communities.
Landfill Tax Credit Scheme21
Projects seeking funding must be within 10 miles of an active landfill site.
Guidelines for the scheme stipulate that allotments are excluded ‘since they are
used by individuals, not the general public’. However, a number of allotment
associations have secured funding for activities that provide a public amenity
(e.g. wildlife gardens, community composting, community building).
Community Development Foundation22
This £130 million scheme is managed by the Community Development
Foundation (CDF). It is aimed at helping small voluntary and community
organisations provide support in their communities, particularly those who are
20
http://www.awardsforall.org.uk/
21
www.ltcs.org.uk
22
http://www.cdf.org.uk/
Ashley Godfrey Associates
98
Review of Allotment Provision
most vulnerable. Grants have been spent on a range of community activity
helping communities to deal with the individual challenges that face each local
community.
Small and local community groups with annual incomes below
£30,000 can apply for the grants of between £250 and £5,000.
Primary Care Trust
Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) run small grants schemes. Grants are typically small
(£500 - £3,000 and fund small scale community-led projects which contribute to
improving the health of local people. Criteria may focus on healthy living or
healthy eating projects, schemes to increase physical activity or facilities for
disabled people.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
99
Review of Allotment Provision
8. Recommendations
The review of allotments has identified the following issues which any future strategy
will need to address:

the need to meet both current and future demand;

improvements to the quality of provision to ensure that allotment sites are
welcoming and accessible to all;

improvements to the management and administration of allotment sites;

safe and secure allotment sites;

sustainable practices;

promotion of allotments.
There are six key recommendations with a subset of individual objectives for the
achievement of each recommendation.
Recommendation 1: To provide a sufficient number of allotments in the right
locations to meet both current and future demand.
There are substantial waiting lists at nearly all the allotment sites in Cambridge. The
objectives set out below set out the ways in which this recommendation could be
achieved.
Objective 1.1 - Safeguarding existing provision.
Existing allotment sites should be safeguarded from development and should be
specifically protected for allotment use in the Local Development Framework.
It will be important for all allotment plots to be retained and tenancy levels
maintained and improved, eliminating any potential threat of closure. The status of
temporary sites requires further investigation and where appropriate the necessary
steps to change the status of these sites to that of a permanent site should be taken.
Any threats or proposals that would adversely affect allotment provision, e.g. causes
of sudden decline in tenancy level will need to be identified and addressed.
Objective 1.2 - Meeting changes in demand
Ashley Godfrey Associates
A substantial number of new homes will be built in and around the City over the next
few years and it will be necessary to ensure that the demand from these additional
areas of population is met through new provision of allotments.
The potential to address any deficiencies in provision from existing underused open
space should be investigated.
The potential to develop new private sites should be investigated.
Objective 1.3 - Maximise the use of existing allotments.
A small number of sites are not fully utilised and some of the existing demand could
be met through better utilisation of underused plots.
In some cases, the task of reclaiming unused plots is daunting and likely to deter
potential users. This could be addressed through site clearance and soil
improvement sponsored by the Allotment Service.
Many of the Allotment Associations have sought to enhance the utilisation of plots by
subdivision from the traditional 10 rod plot to plots of 5 rods or less. This enables
those people who are new to allotment gardening or who have limited time available
to have access to a plot that is manageable. If the new tenant has cultivated the
small plot well, there should be a pathway to their increasing the size of their
allotment or being allocated more space elsewhere. They should have priority over
existing waiting list tenants. This approach is already being applied successfully by a
number of the Associations and all the Associations should be encouraged to adopt
this practice through leases??.
Where sites have limited infrastructure, measures such as improved roadways,
better layout and improved water supply will encourage increased occupancy across
the whole site. The questionnaire survey found that the facilities of the greatest
importance to allotment holders were water troughs, easy access to the site and
good access within the site (all considered important by over 80%).
It is important that tenants at both Council and Allotment Association managed sites
actively work their plots, and that plots with large percentages of uncultivated land
are reclaimed to be let to others. This approach requires careful management to
Ashley Godfrey Associates
101
ensure that people whose circumstances make it difficult to work on their plot in the
short term are not penalised.
There needs to be a system in place whereby representatives of an Association or
the Council monitor closely plots which are starting to become unmanageable What
does this mean?. The tenant could then be given a chance to explain any
circumstances, which are impeding their ability to fully cultivate their plot and
possibly receive some help in the case of certain situations such as ill health or
illness in the family. Other tenants with no good reason for the decline of their plot
would be given the necessary informal warnings at an early stage so that plots do
not fall into total disuse before any action is taken.
One Association in South Cambridgeshire has for the last 3 years, operated a
deposit system whereby new tenants pay a deposit of £50 which is refundable in full
only if the plot is given up in good condition (except in certain mitigating
circumstances). The result of this is that tenants who cannot manage tend to let the
Association know in good time of their intention to give up their plot.
Plotholders who may be struggling to manage a full size plot should be encouraged
to reduce the size of their plot. If their circumstances changed again and they had
more capacity, then consideration should be given to their being given extra space.
It may be appropriate to reassess the current use of parts of some sites, for example
areas with good soil that have become overgrown and which could be returned to
cultivation.
Measures and assistance to improve sites e.g. better drainage, pest control.
Recommendation 2: To provide allotment sites which are welcoming and
accessible to all
Objective 2.1 - Make sites look positive and inviting
A high level of unkempt plots reduces the condition and perception of the whole site
by weed spread from overgrown plots, a sense of dereliction and a lowering of value.
This can lead to an increase in the rate of failed tenancies. A key action in making
allotments attractive and welcoming is to ensure that the plots are fully utilised.
The first point of entry is the gates and these need to be well maintained.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
102
Some sites would benefit from better-designed entrances e.g. Burnside.
The provision of welcoming noticeboards at sites would create a better impression of
the site and provide tenants with information which is specific to the site of a more
general nature.
There is a need to ensure that the entrances to allotment sites are clear of rubbish
and that graffiti is removed.
Easy access to the site and good access within the site were considered important
by over 80% of respondents to the questionnaire survey. Moderately important
facilities were storage for tools and composting (considered important by over two
thirds) followed by a site shop and noticeboard, considered important by over 60%.
Working with Allotment Association representatives and tenants to ensure all sites
are attractive throughout by clearing unsightly and neglected areas of allotment sites.
Improved maintenance of structures and boundaries would enhance the appearance
of most allotment sites.
Objective 2.2 – Adopt a Quality Standard23 for Allotment Sites
New and existing allotment sites should aspire to meet the following quality
standards:
Paths
Should be 1.4 metres to enable disabled access
Haulage ways
Should be 3 metres wide
Allotment Buildings24
The following recommendations are in respect of the
sizes of buildings, which NSALG believe should be
permitted without local authority approval. This is not to
say that larger buildings should not be acceptable, but
with approval from whom? Planning permission?
Plotholders shed
12 square metres
Greenhouse
15 square metres
Polytunnel
30 square metres
23
The Quality Standard has been drafted following consultation with the NSALG.
Where buildings need foundations or are connected to services then local authority approval may
be necessary.
24
Ashley Godfrey Associates
103
Water
NSALG recommends that the minimum provision should
be one water point per 6-8 plots, although the optimum is
for one water point per 4 plots. Water Authorities normally
require push taps to be fitted as these will also prevent
wastage of water.
Where plotholders have buildings on their plots they
should be encouraged (or possibly required) to have
rainwater collection and storage attached as this will also
reduce mains water usage.
Hedges/Fences
Adequate security measures including good fences and
hedges should be place as a precaution against
vandalism.
While Chestnut paling or chain link fences provide an
immediate barrier, in the long term it is better if these are
backed by a suitable thorn hedge. This will ensure that
when the fencing needs replacing, a hedge will already be
established. This will also help with the aesthetics of the
site and contribute to the ecology.
Entrances
Should be attractive and inviting, preferably with a notice
board showing contact details and other site information.
Plotholders should be encouraged to ensure the site is
kept tidy and well maintained as a visually poor site will
not get support from neighbours and may encourage
vandalism.
Communal Buildings
Where
circumstances
permit,
communal
buildings
including toilet facilities, should be encouraged as this will
help create a communal spirit amongst plotholders.
Where plotholders have to travel by car to their site,
parking will need to be considered, together with tool
storage facilities. This can either be individual plot sheds
Ashley Godfrey Associates
104
or where circumstances permit a communal building with
individual lockers for plotholders.
Haulage ways
These should be fit for purpose. If heavy use is expected,
a hard surface will be more desirable than grass which
can be churned up. The choice of materials used should
fit the circumstances.
Composting
Plotholders should be encouraged to compost as much
plot waste as is possible. This will not only add nutrient
and condition to the soil, but will help reduce the carbon
footprint by not burning.
On larger sites, it might be
advantageous to have a communal composting area,
which can also be used for council green waste such as
autumn leaves.
800m pedestrian distance threshold (480m straight
Accessibility Standard
line. 10 minutes walking time). This is based on the
finding that four fifths of plots holders take less than 10
minutes to get to their allotment
Objective 2.3 - Good and safe access to sites
Well-maintained main paths or roadways with good quality surfaces ensure good
access. Safe and secure parking for cars such as that provided at the Elfleda Road
site is a priority at some sites.
Objective 2.4 - Sites which are inclusive
Provision for the less able-bodied should be made on the basis of demand and in
accordance with the DDA. The Disability Discrimination Act Part 3 places a
responsibility on all providers to make reasonable alterations to services and
infrastructures to improve accessibility for all, irrespective of any physical or mental
impairment of the user. Some sites, such as Histon Road, have good level roadways
and parking which is more easily accessible to people with disabilities. Other sites,
such as Auckland Road have only pedestrian access and narrow grass footpaths.
Clearly,
such
sites
present
Ashley Godfrey Associates
accessibility
issues.
However,
alterations
to
105
accommodate better access would require major investment that would be
considered unreasonable. The entrances to allotment sites should be accessible to
all and relevant to people’s needs.
The creation of a network of accessible plots across the City would improve
participation by people with disabilities by provision of the following facilities:

raised beds;

wide paths;

water supply;

accessible shed;

vehicle access and parking.
Objective 2.5 – Improvements to waste management
Accumulation of rubbish is unsightly. The Council and Allotment Associations should
encourage plotholders to reduce the amount of non-compostable waste that has to
be removed from allotment sites.
There are currently only a small number of communal compost heaps on allotment
sites. Provision of such a facility would reduce the amount of vegetable matter
dumped in corners and at the edges of allotment sites. However such schemes
would need to be carefully managed to ensure that only suitable material is
deposited on the communal compost heap. Fairfax Road site manages the
communal composting scheme successfully, but other examples have shown that
some tenants can use a communal compost area to dump unsuitable material.
In addition, tenants should be encouraged to compost vegetable matter on their own
plots.
Objective 2.6 – Well designed new allotment sites
New allotment sites should conform to the Quality Standard set out in Objective 2.2
above.
Particular features to be considered should include:

Design of plots so as to fit well with the existing landscape;
Ashley Godfrey Associates
106

Communal Building provided for use as storage and shop;

Creation of a safe and secure environment;

Enabling access for all;

Setting aside part of the area as a communal garden with seating;

Use of sustainable or green technology in building and site design, such as:
timber construction and composting toilet facilities;

Creation of biodiversity features such as a pond fed by site drainage, log piles
etc.
Recommendation 3: Improved management and administration of allotment
sites
Objective 3.1 – Produce an Allotments Management Policy
An Allotments Management Policy will need to set out in detail the Council’s
approach to some of the following:

the terms of the devolved management agreement;

responsibilities for day-to-day administration;

basis for determining rent levels;

concessions and the definition of concessionaries;

collection of rents;

expenditure of rental income;

any other fees that can be charged;

payment of utility charges (eg. water);

restrictions on utility use;

responsibility, payment and organisation of maintenance and improvement;

management of lettings;

conditions for offering tenancies and how are they determined;

content of the tenancy agreement and how can it be varied;
Ashley Godfrey Associates
107

responsibility for setting and controlling the standards of cultivation and
compliance;

service of notices of non-compliance and notices to quit;

maintenance of the waiting list;

constraints on structures (size, design, type, materials etc);

reporting requirements to the council (e.g. accounts, general report etc);

responsible for site security (fences, gates etc);

preparation of vacant plots;

provision/maintenance/insurance/storage of equipment e.g. mowers and
strimmers;

arbitration of disputes between the society and plotholders.
Objective 3.2 – To improve the efficiency of site management
The Council wants to ensure that it provides the very best service for tenants,
ensuring that its performance remains high when compared with other local
authorities.
The Council will ensure the effective management and administration of allotment
sites by continuing to develop a strong partnership with the Allotment Associations
and Site Representatives. It will also be important to develop partnerships with other
local agencies, which might also have an interest in promoting allotment use, such
as the local Primary Care Trust and the Cambridge Council for Voluntary Service.
To ensure that a high quality service is provided all administration and management
procedures will be reviewed. This will include a review of plot letting and waiting list
procedures. The Allotment administration system for Council managed sites is
already computerised.
The Council will continue to promote allotments and monitor vacancies with the aim
of having all sites fully tenanted.
The need for good records and administration is essential for the efficient running of
the Allotments Service and the development of a partnership approach to
Ashley Godfrey Associates
108
management. The Council will therefore investigate the advantages of introducing an
Allotment
Management
software
package
such
as
the
Colony
Allotment
Management Software System or the Clear Advantage Allotments System (a clientserver application). These systems can be used to manage single or multiple (i.e.
Council and Allotment Associations) sites.
An Allotments Management System would:

record/recall all information regarding a plot and site;

organise all aspects of plot letting;

manage site/plot inspections;

raise, track and acknowledge repair instructions to completion;

control budget expenditure for each cost centre;

identify outstanding debtors;

produce comprehensive management reports;

invoice directly to the, or interface with the central invoicing system;

follow-up non payment and non cultivation with reminder letters;

issue Notices to Quit either for non-payment or non-cultivation;

keep track of tenants interested in occupied plots;

interface to GIS mapping packages;

direct emailing of documents and reports to Allotment Associations;

maintain a complete tenant history covering all tenant transactions.
However, such a system would be run by the Council in partnership with the
Allotment Associations. It would not result in the loss of autonomy for the individual
Associations, who have all stated that they wish to continue to manage their own
waiting lists. One advantage of such a system would be to facilitate the
dissemination of information from the Council to Allotment Societies and vice versa.
For example, although there are long waiting lists for most sites, there are vacancies
Ashley Godfrey Associates
109
at Elfleda Road and it is possible that these could serve to meet some of the
demand.
Another advantage of this approach is that it would provide an opportunity to better
co-ordinate the waiting lists of Allotment Associations and avoid the situation where
people are placing their names on several waiting lists or have an allotment at one
site, but put their name on a waiting list for another site.
In the past, when most sites had vacancies, there was no limit on the number of
plots that a tenant could occupy, nor were tenancies limited to Cambridge residents.
This means that there are a small number of tenants that occupy several plots. In
addition, there are a small number of plots which are let to people living outside the
City.
The high demand for allotments means that most sites now have waiting lists of over
12 months for a plot. In most cases, new applicants are limited to a maximum of a
half size plot, with the option of upgrading to a full plot if they cultivate the half plot
successfully.
In order to reduce waiting lists, it is proposed to develop a policy with regard to
tenants who occupy more than one plot, and those who live outside the City.
However this policy could apply to new applicants only, it is not proposed to apply
this policy retrospectively to existing tenants.
The Cherry Hinton site provides one example of good practice in the management of
waiting lists. The Site Secretary contacts people on the waiting list every twelve
months and asks them to confirm that they wish to remain on the list.
Objective 3.3 - To increase tenant involvement with the management of
allotment sites
It is important to generate effective communication and consultation with both
allotment associations and individual plot holders.
At present, the Council manages ten of the smaller allotment sites. The larger sites
have their own Allotment Associations and tenants are encouraged to participate in
them. The Council continues to work in partnership with these Allotment
Ashley Godfrey Associates
110
Associations. These Associations are independent but are members of the
Cambridge Central Council of Allotment Societies.
At present there is no regular forum for Council officers and representatives of
Allotment Associations to meet to discuss relevant allotment issues.
Each Allotment Association site has an appointed committee with a site secretary
who provides an important link with the Allotment Officers. Their responsibilities
include providing a communication link with tenants, meeting new gardeners,
showing them available plots and notifying the Allotment Officer of any site problems.
They are expected to apply the tenancy conditions fairly, in the interests of all and to
receive support from the other tenants. An annual general meeting is also held and
all allotment tenants are invited to attend.
The Council’s web site has an allotment page and this should continue to be
reviewed and upgraded to provide better and clearer information.
Delegated self-management fulfils two aims: ensuring greater control by the tenants
of an allotment site and reducing the administrative burden to the allotment authority.
For individual plot holders, devolution can also bring more responsive management
on a day-to-day basis, a sense of pride in any improvements to the site, and
opportunities for volunteers to bring their own skills and expertise to a new
challenge.
The Council should continue to offer the option of delegated self-management
agreements to allotment sites, ensuring that tenants themselves have the
opportunity to participate in the management of their sites.
It is proposed that the Council continues to improve the relationship between the
Allotments Service and Allotments Associations by carrying out the following: 
Hold at least one Allotments Association Forum meeting per annum.

Give consideration to the establishment of an Allotments Panel 25 which would
meet one or two times a year as required. The panel would be chaired by a
councillor with at least two other councillors also being members. Other
representatives would be elected every two years. Allotment Association
25
The Allotments Panel is modelled on the Bristol Allotments panel (see Appendix X for a copy of the
Allotments Panel Terms of Reference).
Ashley Godfrey Associates
111
(including Private Allotment sites) representatives would be nominated by
their Association.

Encouragement should be given to non-leasing sites to become leasing
associations where they indicate a wish to do so, and to encourage new
associations to develop where there are currently none (ARI can provide
advice on this).

Tenants will be encouraged to become Site Representatives for Council
managed allotment sites on sites where there are currently none, with the aim
of at least 75% of sites having a Site Representative by 2013.

A Site Representatives Code of Conduct will be introduced that provides
advice and guidance on issues such as health and safety, their duties,
harassment, equal opportunities etc.;
The Active Communities Annual Budget will continue to include provision for both
Council managed and Allotment Association sites. The Allotments Service will
consult the Associations and Site Representatives on the requirements of their sites.
Objective 3.4 - To provide efficient allotment administration
The need for administrative improvement is necessary to provide more efficient
letting of plots; management of tenancies; and the collection of rents and charges.
The preparation of an allotment operations manual for Site Secretaries and Site
Representatives would ensure that procedures are correctly documented and
followed. It should contain clear advice on the following:

Safety on site;

A brief description of good practice in terms of plot cultivation and site
management;

Good practice in terms of biodiversity and the environment;

References for further information;

Contacts for site associations and an explanation of their role;

The requirements of the lease and inspection arrangements.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
112
A review of the following procedures needs to be undertaken and where necessary
these will be updated: 
Standardisation of the rules for tenants who fail to cultivate their plots. Current
practices on several Association sites work very well and these provide a
model which could be followed by all Associations. Close observation is
necessary so that plots, which are not being cultivated fully, are monitored at
an early stage. With the larger sites such as Pakenham Close, there are
several representatives on the Committee who have the responsibility to
monitor part of the site and report to the site secretary. Several Associations
offer help to plotholders who are unable to cultivate their plots temporarily
through ill health. Tenants who, for no good reason, neglect the plot would be
given an informal warning, which after an agreed length of time would be
followed by a formal warning if there had been no improvement. The final
stage, if previous measures had failed to have effect, would be the service of
a notice to quit. It is important that regular monitoring and action takes place
throughout the year with regard to uncultivated plots and not to leave action
until the period coming up to rent day.

At present, most Associations have an appeals procedure if a tenant wishes
to dispute a notice to quit. Usually, this is in the form of a meeting to which all
tenants on the site are invited. Such procedures have rarely been invoked in
the past but, when they have, proceedings have sometimes been
acrimonious. One way of making such a process less personal and more
impartial would be to ensure that there is a procedure for complaints and
disputes the introduction of an Allotments Appeals Panel through the auspices
of the Allotments Panel.

A new tenancy agreement will be introduced in 2010 and this provides an
opportunity to update the rules and make the tenancy agreement more
relevant and easier to read and understand. This should be drafted in
consultation with Site Representatives, Allotment Associations, the Allotment
Panel and the Council’s Legal section. The new tenancy agreement could
include the following clauses regarding issues that have been a cause for
complaint over recent years: -
Ashley Godfrey Associates
113

banning the use of carpets;

ban bringing rubbish onto sites;

keeping dogs on a lead and not allowing them to stray onto other plots;

tenants who harass others could be evicted.
A shorter guide for the prospective allotment holder also should be produced and
made available. It should contain information on the following:

The application process.

What is expected of allotment holders and what their likely commitment in
terms of time may be.

Practical guidance on allotment gardening.

The opportunities for participation in site management.

The termination procedure.
Objective 3.5 - Improve funding for allotment sites
It is important to investigate ways of securing financing to ensure the continual
improvement of the allotment service. This will involve exploring new and creative
ways of generating additional funding, by way of local and national grant
mechanisms.
Objective 3.6 - Implement and monitor the Action Plan
It will be necessary to record progress in the implementation of the action plan.
Where issues remain outstanding or where new issues emerge, a review will be
required.
Recommendation 4: - To have healthy, safe and secure allotments.
Allotment sites should be healthy, safe and secure places for all allotment tenants
and visitors.
Objective 4.1 - To offer sites that are secure places for all members of the
community.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
114
Consultation undertaken for this study revealed that there has been an increase in
the number of sheds broken into and theft of produce. Good security is considered
by over 80% of respondents to the questionnaire survey to be a high priority. Less
than half of all respondents were satisfied with the current level of security at
allotment sites.
In the first instance, more active and well-tenanted sites will deter intruders. A strong
community on the site will encourage tenants to “watch out” for each other and for
the site. Links with local residents could also be developed to help keep a watch on
sites. Consideration could be given to setting up an Allotment Watch scheme, in
discussion with partner organisations.
Individual site security and community safety audit of sites on an annual basis could
be undertaken. The Allotment Officer in consultation with the Site Secretary/Site
Representative and possibly with the Police would carry this out. Recommendations
would be incorporated into individual site improvement plans. The inspection would
aim to identify weaknesses in site security and any defects that present a safety
problem to allotment users and adjacent residents.
The Council will continue to actively liaise with and involve the Neighbourhood
Police, Community Patrol and Community Safety Team in safeguarding sites.
The Council will seek to promote best practice in health and safety on all allotment
sites.
Objective 4.2 - Ensure that all livestock is well cared for
Where animals are kept on allotments, the RSPCA advises the use of guidelines to
safeguard animal welfare and ensure the highest standards of animal husbandry.
The guidelines are as follows:

Animals need to be kept in an appropriate environment with adequate general
care. The advice from the RSPCA is that if the local authority cannot ensure
these basic standards, it should expressly prohibit the keeping of animals on
its allotment sites.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
115

The advice of the RSPCA is that allotment holders who want to keep livestock
should be able to demonstrate minimum standards of experience/training
before being allowed to keep farm animals.

Any allotment holder keeping animals should supply full contact details with a
24 hour phone number in case of emergencies.

Suitable arrangements should be made for the care of animals while the
owner is on holiday or away.

Either a designated person from the Allotment Association or a Cambridge
City Council officer, with suitable farm knowledge and experience, should
carry out pre-arranged and spot checks on the animals kept on the allotment
sites.

Consideration should be given to additional security measures on sites where
animals are kept, particularly those vulnerable to vandalism or theft.

In partnership with Allotment Associations, an animals on allotments policy
stating which species of animals may be kept, how many, and the standards
of care will be drafted.
Objective 4.3 - Allotments should be free from dog fouling and dogs kept
under proper control.
It is not appropriate that dogs should be allowed to roam freely on allotment sites
with the attendant risk of dog fouling on plots with food for human consumption.
Objective 4.4 - To have health and safety policies in place, in practice and
regularly reviewed.
Cambridge City Council will promote best practice in health and safety on all
allotment sites. This will include annual site safety inspections to be carried out by
the Allotment Officer in consultation with the Site Secretary/Site Representative on
all sites. The inspection will seek to identify defects that present a safety problem to
allotment users and adjacent residents.
Recommendation 5: Encourage sustainable practices
Ashley Godfrey Associates
116
Objective 5.1 - To encourage a more sustainable approach to allotment
gardening.
The integration of allotment gardening into local sustainable community development
strategies can enhance the benefits of allotments. By growing their own food,
allotment gardeners already make a contribution to local food production and the
reduction of ‘food miles’, and this benefit can be enhanced through the distribution of
surplus crops within local communities. The adoption of organic methods provides
the further benefit of production that is sustainable from an ecological standpoint.
The growing of fresh vegetables, flowers and fruit is a sustainable activity and as a
consequence this study provides a contribution to achieving the goals contained
within Cambridge City Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy.
Allotment plots and their margins, hedges and unmanaged areas provide valuable
habitat for many species of animals, birds and invertebrates. To some degree, they
also safeguard other flora and fauna, especially given that their access is restricted.
Estimates indicate that allotments have an average of up to 30% higher species
diversity than a private domestic garden. There is undoubtedly a greater potential for
the better management of the natural features of allotments, creating improved
habitats and a richer source of local biodiversity. Even in their choice of crops,
allotment gardeners make a contribution to biodiversity. In some instances tenants
can help keep alive strains of fruit and vegetable varieties which are no longer
available through commercial channels.
Regulations with regard to the sale of produce could be relaxed to enable Allotment
Associations to generate income to support their activities. Tenants and Associations
could also be permitted to sell produce where the proceeds are donated to charitable
institutions.
Objective 5.1 – To encourage ‘thinking green’
Some plotholders may still regard wildlife as a ‘pest’. Left uncontrolled, many insects
can ruin a crop, but for every ‘pest’ there is at least one predator species that will
Ashley Godfrey Associates
117
bring the population under control. Attracting beneficial wildlife can be quite
straightforward26.
The use of ‘green manures’ would help to improve soil condition without the need to
import animal manures. They have the added benefit of preventing weeds from
growing and preventing soil from having its nutrients washed away.
More needs to be done to encourage plotholders to collect rainwater and reduce the
need to install expensive mains water systems. The costs of water supply are
increasing and this is likely to have an impact on allotment rents in the future if there
is total reliance on mains water.
Objective 5.2 - Reducing the use of chemicals
Organic gardening practice, which avoids the use of pesticides, artificial fertilisers,
and peat is also helpful in maximising biodiversity value and preserving indirect
negative environmental effects.
An increasing number of allotment tenants in Cambridge grow their food organically
and this move needs to be encouraged. The Council will endeavour to provide
additional technical advice and assistance to tenants and forge closer links with both
local and national organic associations to foster more organic practices.
The key to attracting beneficial predators to an allotment and to encourage more and
different ones to become established is to reduce the use of toxic chemicals, ideally
cutting them out all together. Most toxins found in pesticides are non-specific and are
just as likely to kill beneficial insects as pests. Spraying against pests will often kills
their predators as well, which means that pests can multiply without check, forcing
the plotholder to spray repeatedly.
Objective 5.3 - To improve waste management
For materials that cannot be recycled, the Council provides waste skips when
necessary. Due to increasing costs to the Council, for disposal of waste, this service
will need to be closely monitored and regularly reviewed. It is important that
Associations receive adequate communication as to when deliveries of skips are
26
See ‘Wildlife on allotments’ www.naturalengland.org.uk.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
118
planned as this is an issue which has caused problems in the past. Provision of skips
was important to 58% of respondents to the questionnaire survey.
Objective 5.4 - To improve recycling opportunities and increase the amount of
material recycled
Most allotment tenants are committed to recycling materials, self-sufficiency and
environmental competence by the very nature of what they do. Allotments are the
heart of living a sustainable lifestyle and support the environment in many ways. The
Council will encourage recycling methods and composting initiatives where possible
and provide additional guidance on sustainable practices.
Objective 5.5 - To improve water efficiency
Reduced mains water usage, increased numbers of rainwater storage and users and
reduce water wastage.
Recommendation 6: To promote the use of allotments.
Objective 6.1 - Promote and widen access to allotments.
The Active Communities Service Plan 2008/09 recognises the need to work with the
allotment societies in promoting the use of allotments for the benefit of people living
in Cambridge.
Promotional materials including the Council website can be used to increase
awareness of this valuable resource.
The most difficult period for any new allotment holder is starting up. Support for
prospective and new allotment holders can facilitate this process including site
clearance where plots are overgrown, starter plots to facilitate the learning process.
Objective 6.2 - Promote allotment gardening as a healthy leisure activity.
This is particularly important for groups which stand to benefit most from greater
participation in allotment gardening, such as the active elderly and unemployed and
persons with special needs.
Objective 6.3 – Provide guidance on allotment gardening methods
Organisations such as the National Society of Allotment & Leisure Gardeners
produce leaflets on subjects including:
Ashley Godfrey Associates
119

First Steps in Allotment Gardening

Handy Hints for New Gardeners

Clearing an Overgrown Plot

Bees on Allotment Sites

Easy to Grow Vegetables

Composting and Re-cycling
Ashley Godfrey Associates
120
APPENDIX
A:
Ashley Godfrey Associates
THE
MEANING
OF
‘ALLOTMENT’
121
The Meaning of the term ‘Allotment’.
The term "allotment" is not precisely defined in the 1908 Act, or in subsequent
legislation, but it includes a "field garden"
1908 Allotment Act - Section 61
(1)
For the purposes of this Act—
The expression “small holding” means an agricultural holding which exceeds one
acre and either does not exceed fifty acres….
The expression “allotment” includes a field garden.
Prior to 1922 an allotment could be anything up to 5 acres in extent cultivated or
intended to be cultivated as a garden or farm or partly as a garden and partly as
a farm (see Allotments Act 1925)
The Allotments Act 1922 definition of an ‘allotment garden’ is as follows:
Section 22 (1)
For the purposes of this Act, where the context permits—
Section 22 defines 'allotment gardens' as 'an allotment not exceeding forty poles
in extent which is mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of
vegetables and fruit crops for consumption by himself or his family'.
In the 1925 Allotment Act, unless the context otherwise requires —
“Allotment” means an allotment garden as defined by the Allotments Act, 1922, or
any parcel of land not more than five acres in extent cultivated or intended to be
cultivated as a garden or farm, or partly as a garden and partly as a farm;
The Act of 1922 therefore allowed two types of allotments either allotments or
allotment gardens.
However, for the special purposes of section 3 of the 1922 Act, which relates to
tenant's compensation, the Allotment Act of 1922 states in Section 3:
‘Provision as to cottage holdings and certain allotments
In this section the expression “allotment” means any parcel of land, whether
attached to a cottage or not, of not more than two acres in extent, held by a
Ashley Godfrey Associates
122
tenant under a landlord and cultivated as a farm or a garden, or partly as a
garden and partly as a farm.’
For the purposes of the Act of 1925,' an allotment means "an allotment garden as
defined by the 1922 Act, or any parcel of land not more than five acres in extent
cultivated as a garden or farm,' or partly as a garden and partly as a farm".
In practice, most local authority allotments do not exceed 40 poles (i.e.0.25 of an
acre or 0.101 of a hectare) in extent, and so are capable of falling within the
definition of "allotment gardens". This is so even if four of the customary 10 rod
plots are let together to the same tenant.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
123
APPENDIX
Ashley Godfrey Associates
B:
QUESTIONNAIRE
124
CAMBRIDGE ALLOTMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE
The Council recognises the importance of allotment provision in the City of Cambridge and
is currently conducting a review of this resource. All information gathered during this process
will not be used for any other purpose.
Please complete the questionnaire and return it in the pre-paid envelope by August 1st 2009.
SECTION 1- YOUR ALLOTMENT
1.
WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR ALLOTMENT SITE?
........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
2.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD AN ALLOTMENT?
Less
years
aa
3.
than
2
1
2-4 Years
5-9years
10-14 years
15-20
Years
More than
20 years
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
2
3
4
5
6
HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE ALLOTMENT WAITING LIST?
Existing
allotment
holder
Live nearby
Neighbour
Council
Information
Internet
Other
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other (please write in) .................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
Ashley Godfrey Associates
125
4.
HOW LONG WERE YOU ON THE WAITING LIST?
Less
year
aa
5.
than
1
1
1-2 Years
3-4years
4-5 years
More
years
aa
aa
aa
aa
2
3
4
than 5
5
WHAT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR ALLOTMENT?
Full
(10 Pole)
aa
1
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Size Half
(5Pole)
aa
2
Size
Starter Plot
aa
3
126
6.
7.
8.
HOW DO YOU USUALLY GET TO YOUR ALLOTMENT?
Walk
Cycle
Car
aa
aa
aa
1
2
3
Bus
Other
aa
aa
4
5
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU TO GET TO YOUR ALLOTMENT?
Less than 5 minutes
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 15 minutes
More
than
minutes
aa
aa
aa
aa
1
2
3
15
4
WHAT IS YOU POSTCODE, PLEASE?
........................................................................................................................................
9.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS GETTING TO YOUR ALLOTMENT SITE?
No
aa
Yes
aa
1
2
IF YES, WHAT ARE THEY?
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
10.
WAS THIS SITE YOUR FIRST CHOICE?
Yes
No
aa
aa
1
2
IF NOT, PLEASE GIVE THE REASON WHY NOT AND THE NAME OF YOUR FIRST
CHOICE.
....................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
Ashley Godfrey Associates
127
SECTION 2 – HOW YOU USE YOUR ALLOTMENT
11.
HOW OFTEN DO YOU USUALLY VISIT YOUR ALLOTMENT?
IN THE SPRING/SUMMER MONTHS (APR-SEPT)
Every day
Two or three
times a week
Once a week
Two or three Once a month
times a month
or less
aa
aa
aa
1
aa
2
3
aa
4
5
On average for how long?
One hour or less
Between one and
two hours
Two to three hours
More than
hours
aa
aa
aa
1
aa
2
3
three
4
IN THE AUTUMN/ WINTER MONTHS (OCT-MARCH )
Every day
Two or three
times a week
Once a week
Two or three Once a month
times a month
or less
aa
aa
aa
1
aa
2
3
aa
4
5
On average for how long?
12.
One hour or less
Between one and
two hours
Two to three hours
More than
hours
aa
aa
aa
1
aa
2
3
three
4
WHEN YOU VISIT YOUR ALLOTMENT ARE YOU NORMALLY,
Please tick all that apply
Alone
aa
1
With partner
aa
2
With children
aa
3
With other family
aa
4
aa
5
With friends
Other (please write in) ..........................................................................................
Ashley Godfrey Associates
128
13.
WHAT DO YOU GROW AT YOUR ALLOTMENT?
Vegetables
Fruit
Flowers
Other
(Please
below)
aa
aa
aa
aa
1
2
3
specify
4
........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
Has your use changed over the years?
No
aa
Yes
1
aa
2
If Yes how has it changed?
........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
Do you grow organically ?
Yes
aa
1
No
aa
2
Do you have any views on organic gardening?
........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
Do you keep livestock e.g. chickens ?
No
aa
Yes
1
aa
2
If Yes, what type of livestock and how many?
........................................................................................................................................
14.
ARE THERE ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GROW OR KEEP ON YOUR
ALLOTMENT WHICH YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO DO AT PRESENT?
No
aa
Yes
1
aa
2
If yes, what are these?
...................................................................................................................................
Ashley Godfrey Associates
129
15.
16.
DO YOU COMPOST GREEN WASTE ON YOUR PLOT?
Yes
No
aa
aa
1
2
DOES YOUR ALLOTMENT SITE HAVE COMMUNAL COMPOSTING FACILITIES?
Yes
No
aa
aa
2
aa
2
1
If yes, do you use them?
aa
1
Yes
17.
No
DO YOU COLLECT AND USE RAINWATER?
Yes
No
aa
aa
1
2
SECTION 3- ALLOTMENT FACILITIES
18.
19.
HOW DO YOU RATE THE QUALITY OF THE SOIL AT YOUR ALLOTMENT SITE?
Very Good
Good
Average
Below Average
Poor
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
1
2
3
4
5
HOW DO YOU RATE THE ACCESS TO WATER ON YOUR ALLOTMENT?
Very Good
Good
Average
Below Average
Poor
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
1
2
3
4
5
Could be improvements be made?
........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
20.
HOW DO YOU RATE THE QUALITY OF THE PATHS?
Very Good
Good
Average
Below Average
Poor
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
1
2
3
4
5
Could be improvements be made?
........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
Ashley Godfrey Associates
130
21.
HOW DO YOU RATE THE QUALITY OF THE SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS?
Very Good
Good
Average
Below Average
Poor
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
1
2
3
4
5
Could be improvements be made?
........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
22.
23.
HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOWING TO YOU?
Please tick the appropriate answer
IMPORTANT
NEUTRAL
UNIMPORTANT
Storage for Tools
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Toilets
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Communal shed
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
A site shop
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Car parking
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Cycle parking
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Noticeboard
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Easy access to the site
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Good access within the site
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Security
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Composting
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Skips
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
Water trough
aa
1
aa
2
aa
3
DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH PESTS OR WILDLIFE?
No
aa
Yes
1
aa
2
Please give details
........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
24.
25.
DID YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE OF VEGETABLE GROWING BEFORE YOU
TOOK ON AN ALLOTMENT?
Yes
No
aa
aa
1
2
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ON ALLOTMENT GARDENING?
Yes
Ashley
Godfrey Associates
aa
1
No
aa
131
2
If YES, what sort of information would you like?
THANK YOU FOR TAKING PART IN THIS SURVEY
Please return the questionnaire to Recreation Officer Justin Marsh in the reply-paid
envelope.
Justin Marsh, Active Communities, Cambridge City Council, Hobson House, 44 St
Andrews Street, Cambridge, CB2 3AS.
Ashley Godfrey Associates
132
EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY
Cambridge City Council wants to deliver high quality services in a fair and equal way to all
sections of the community. In order to help us achieve this the following section relates to
equlaities and diversity .
Completion of this is not a mandatory requirement but any information provided will not be
released to any other organisation and will only be used to indicate how the City Council is
serving the communities within Cambridge.
1.
HOW OLD ARE YOU
Under
years
aa
2.
16
1
16-24 years
25 to
years
aa
aa
2
59 60 to
years
aa
aa
3
4
74 Over
years
aa
5
75
6
ARE YOU…?
aa
Female
3.
44 45 to
years
aa
Male
1
2
WHICH OF THESE BEST DESCRIBES your situation?
Employed
aa
1
Unable to work due
to long-term sickness
or disability
aa
5
Self-employed
aa
2
Retired from work
aa
6
Unemployed
aa
3
Looking after
home or family
aa
7
Full – time Student
aa
4
Other
specify)
aa
7
the
(Please
........................................................................................................................................
4.
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO HAVE A DISABILITY?
aa
Yes
No
1
aa
2
aa
2
DOES THIS LIMIT YOUR ACTIVITIES IN ANY WAY?
aa
Yes
5.
6.
No
1
YOUR SEXUALITY:
Heterosexual
aa
1
Gay
aa
2
Lesbian
aa
3
Bisexual
aa
4
Prefer not to say
aa
5
TO WHICH OF THESE GROUPS DO YOU CONSIDER YOU BELONG?
White
British
Black or Black British
aa 1
Ashley Godfrey Associates
aa 2
Irish
Other White background
Caribbean
aa
8
African
aa
9
Other Black background
Other
Chinese
aa
15
133
Other ethnic group
Ashley Godfrey Associates
134
APPENDIX C: RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
Ashley Godfrey Associates
135
Section One: The Allotment
Total
Council
Informati
on
Neighbo
ur
Existing
allotment
holder
3.4%
5.3%
11.9%
3.7%
6.3%
17.2%
18.4%
9.5%
14.8%
22.2%
59.3%
27.8%
36.6%
40.7%
46.8%
23.7%
25.0%
19.5%
37.0%
27.0%
6.8%
13.9%
7.3%
11.1%
8.7%
6.8%
16.7%
7.3%
7.4%
10.3%
3.4%
13.9%
17.1%
7.4%
6.3%
6.8%
11.1%
17.1%
7.4%
5.6%
12.0%
18.7%
12.0%
20.0%
14.7%
22.7%
43.8%
35.6%
8.2%
4.1%
5.5%
4.1%
17.5%
21.4%
12.7%
44.6%
15.9%
16.1%
12.7%
5.4%
12.7%
1.8%
28.6%
10.7%
57.1%
33.3%
30.2%
42.1%
7.9%
7.0%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
7.0%
7.9%
15.8%
33.3%
38.6%
12.3%
3.5%
3.5%
8.8%
35.1%
17.5%
5.3%
8.8%
24.6%
15.8%
12.5%
16.0%
18.5%
27.6%
20.7%
31.3%
23.5%
16.0%
20.7%
26.2%
25.0%
18.5%
21.0%
24.1%
16.3%
18.8%
11.8%
7.4%
10.3%
9.9%
0.0%
8.4%
16.0%
3.4%
8.1%
12.5%
21.8%
21.0%
13.8%
18.8%
40.0%
43.7%
24.4%
34.5%
41.5%
6.7%
35.3%
26.8%
34.5%
29.2%
13.3%
6.7%
7.3%
0.0%
7.7%
13.3%
4.2%
20.7%
10.3%
8.2%
13.3%
5.9%
12.2%
3.4%
8.4%
13.3%
11.8%
11.0%
17.2%
10.2%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Live
nearby
Other
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
More
than 20
years
12.1%
13.2%
2.4%
11.1%
6.3%
15-20
Years
8.6%
21.1%
14.3%
18.5%
15.1%
10-14
years
Internet
Stourbridge
Grove
5-9years
25.9%
26.3%
26.2%
25.9%
33.3%
2-4
Years
32.8%
15.8%
35.7%
25.9%
16.7%
Less
than
years
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE ALLOTMENT WAITING
LIST?
HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD AN ALLOTMENT?
2
ALLOTMENT
SITE
136
Car
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
81.4%
48.7%
73.8%
70.4%
66.1%
11.9%
38.5%
26.2%
22.2%
29.8%
1.7%
5.1%
0.0%
3.7%
0.8%
34.5%
74.4%
42.9%
70.4%
28.0%
51.7%
25.6%
50.0%
29.6%
46.4%
41.4%
10.3%
33.3%
14.8%
40.8%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
0.8%
80.8%
15.1%
4.1%
0.0%
0.0%
56.0%
24.0%
2.7%
28.4%
60.8%
31.1%
0.0%
0.0%
87.3%
92.5%
11.1%
7.5%
1.6%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
48.4%
26.3%
39.1%
43.9%
7.8%
19.3%
25.0%
50.0%
62.5%
41.1%
34.4%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
Stourbridge
Grove
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
64.9%
28.1%
1.8%
45.6%
47.4%
26.3%
0.0%
1.8%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
85.7%
85.5%
33.3%
89.3%
83.9%
7.1%
13.7%
12.8%
10.7%
9.2%
7.1%
0.9%
25.6%
0.0%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
10.3%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
17.9%
0.0%
2.0%
31.3%
50.4%
43.9%
62.1%
56.1%
37.5%
42.0%
39.0%
27.6%
32.4%
31.3%
0.0%
11.0%
0.0%
4.8%
33.3%
49.2%
61.3%
24.1%
42.2%
40.0%
47.5%
43.8%
69.0%
48.3%
33.3%
23.7%
15.0%
24.1%
28.4%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
Half
(5Pole)
Full Size
Pole)
More than
years
4-5 years
3-4years
1-2 Years
1
than
GET
TO
YOUR
Other
Cycle
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
Less
year
HOW DO YOU USUALLY
ALLOTMENT?
Bus
Walk
1.8%
5.3%
7.7%
16.0%
7.1%
Starter Plot
96.5%
92.1%
92.3%
80.0%
91.3%
Size
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Ashley Godfrey Associates
WHAT IS THE SIZE OF
YOUR ALLOTMENT?
(10
HOW LONG WERE YOU ON THE WAITING
LIST?
5
ALLOTMENT
SITE
137
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU TO GET TO YOUR
ALLOTMENT?
DO
YOU
HAVE
ANY
PROBLEMS GETTING TO
YOUR ALLOTMENT SITE?
WAS THIS SITE YOUR FIRST
CHOICE?
Less than 5
minutes
5
to
minutes
More than 15
minutes
No
Yes
Yes
No
34.5%
63.2%
29.3%
51.9%
32.8%
39.7%
23.7%
34.1%
25.9%
44.0%
24.1%
13.2%
31.7%
14.8%
19.2%
5.2%
0.0%
4.9%
7.4%
4.8%
93.1%
94.9%
95.2%
96.3%
94.4%
6.9%
5.1%
4.8%
3.7%
5.6%
89.5%
97.4%
80.0%
96.3%
96.0%
10.5%
2.6%
20.0%
3.7%
4.0%
43.2%
43.2%
14.9%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
97.3%
2.7%
32.8%
50.0%
46.9%
37.5%
23.4%
10.7%
1.6%
3.6%
98.4%
94.6%
1.6%
5.4%
93.8%
90.9%
6.3%
9.1%
Stourbridge
Grove
36.8%
38.6%
19.3%
7.0%
89.5%
12.3%
62.5%
37.5%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
46.7%
39.8%
42.5%
17.2%
39.1%
40.0%
44.9%
31.3%
37.9%
39.4%
6.7%
16.1%
21.3%
41.4%
19.4%
6.7%
1.7%
6.3%
3.4%
3.7%
93.3%
94.9%
89.9%
96.6%
94.6%
6.7%
5.1%
10.1%
3.4%
5.5%
93.3%
89.7%
98.7%
96.6%
91.2%
6.7%
10.3%
1.3%
3.4%
8.8%
ALLOTMENT
SITE
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Ashley Godfrey Associates
9
10
to
minutes
15
138
Section Two: Use of the Allotment
69.5%
66.7%
71.4%
55.6%
73.6%
5.1%
10.3%
14.3%
11.1%
9.6%
3.4%
2.6%
0.0%
7.4%
3.2%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.4%
20.5%
16.7%
25.9%
13.6%
1.7%
20.5%
7.1%
22.2%
5.6%
51.7%
51.3%
42.9%
29.6%
52.8%
44.8%
25.6%
42.9%
37.0%
32.8%
6.9%
2.6%
7.1%
11.1%
8.8%
32.4%
62.2%
8.1%
0.0%
0.0%
32.4%
5.5%
46.6%
35.6%
12.3%
18.8%
26.8%
64.1%
53.6%
15.6%
12.5%
1.6%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
18.8%
26.8%
3.1%
10.7%
48.4%
64.3%
43.8%
17.9%
6.3%
7.1%
Stourbridge
Grove
19.3%
70.2%
14.0%
1.8%
0.0%
19.3%
7.0%
45.6%
28.1%
19.3%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
18.8%
21.2%
21.3%
31.0%
21.6%
75.0%
71.2%
66.3%
65.5%
67.3%
6.3%
6.8%
11.3%
0.0%
9.8%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
3.4%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.3%
18.8%
21.2%
21.3%
31.0%
21.6%
12.5%
8.6%
10.1%
0.0%
7.8%
50.0%
55.2%
51.9%
41.4%
50.4%
25.0%
28.4%
34.2%
44.8%
33.5%
12.5%
10.3%
8.9%
13.8%
9.6%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
More
than
three hours
Two to three
hours
Between one
and
two
hours
One hour or
less
ON AVERAGE FOR HOW LONG
Every day
Once a week
Once a month
or less
25.4%
20.5%
16.7%
25.9%
13.6%
Two or three
times a month
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Two or three
times a week
HOW OFTEN DO YOU USUALLY VISIT YOUR ALLOTMENT IN
THE SPRING/SUMMER MONTHS (APR-SEPT)?
Every day
ALLOTMENT
SITE
139
14.0%
2.6%
2.4%
14.8%
2.4%
42.1%
48.7%
41.5%
25.9%
43.2%
33.3%
15.4%
39.0%
29.6%
39.2%
14.0%
33.3%
14.6%
29.6%
9.6%
1.8%
0.0%
2.4%
0.0%
5.6%
17.9%
23.7%
19.5%
25.9%
17.7%
48.2%
60.5%
51.2%
44.4%
58.9%
30.4%
13.2%
29.3%
25.9%
19.4%
5.4%
2.6%
0.0%
3.7%
4.0%
9.6%
60.3%
21.9%
6.8%
2.7%
13.9%
56.9%
22.2%
6.9%
8.1%
13.0%
38.7%
22.2%
40.3%
42.6%
9.7%
16.7%
3.2%
5.6%
16.4%
34.0%
55.7%
52.8%
23.0%
13.2%
4.9%
0.0%
Stourbridge
Grove
3.6%
25.0%
41.1%
28.6%
5.4%
17.9%
42.9%
28.6%
10.7%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
6.3%
0.8%
7.8%
10.7%
6.3%
37.5%
46.6%
41.6%
53.6%
41.8%
37.5%
36.4%
29.9%
21.4%
34.0%
12.5%
15.3%
18.2%
10.7%
15.5%
6.3%
3.4%
3.9%
3.6%
3.6%
50.0%
20.7%
23.0%
14.3%
20.6%
25.0%
57.8%
54.1%
60.7%
53.9%
25.0%
18.1%
23.0%
21.4%
21.8%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
3.6%
3.8%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
More
than
three hours
Two to three
hours
Between one
and two hours
hour
or
ON AVERAGE FOR HOW LONG
One
less
Once a week
Two or three
times a month
Once a month
or less
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Two or three
times a week
HOW OFTEN DO YOU USUALLY VISIT YOUR ALLOTMENT IN THE
AUTUMN/ WINTER MONTHS (OCT-MARCH )
Every day
ALLOTMENT
SITE
140
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Other
Flowers
Fruit
Other (please
write in)
With friends
other
With
family
With children
With partner
Vegetables
WHAT DO YOU GROW AT YOUR ALLOTMENT?
WHEN YOU VISIT YOUR ALLOTMENT ARE YOU NORMALLY,
Alone
ALLOTMENT
SITE
84.7%
79.5%
73.8%
70.4%
80.0%
32.2%
41.0%
35.7%
51.9%
33.6%
11.9%
17.9%
7.1%
29.6%
9.6%
10.2%
0.0%
7.1%
11.1%
6.4%
10.2%
7.7%
16.7%
7.4%
8.0%
1.7%
2.6%
2.4%
3.7%
2.4%
98.3%
100.0%
97.6%
100.0%
99.2%
70.7%
81.6%
78.6%
85.2%
83.2%
29.3%
47.4%
54.8%
63.0%
43.2%
5.2%
5.3%
4.8%
7.4%
0.0%
79.7%
44.6%
10.8%
10.8%
10.8%
6.8%
100.0%
92.0%
58.7%
1.3%
85.9%
85.7%
25.0%
37.5%
9.4%
16.1%
7.8%
7.1%
3.1%
10.7%
1.6%
5.4%
100.0%
96.6%
68.8%
81.0%
46.9%
53.4%
1.6%
15.5%
Stourbridge
Grove
70.2%
35.1%
21.1%
15.8%
14.0%
3.5%
98.2%
78.9%
50.9%
12.3%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
43.8%
78.8%
83.8%
86.2%
79.5%
56.3%
32.2%
26.3%
27.6%
34.6%
18.8%
11.9%
7.5%
10.3%
12.5%
12.5%
11.0%
3.8%
6.9%
8.4%
12.5%
8.5%
7.5%
6.9%
9.2%
0.0%
2.5%
6.3%
6.9%
3.6%
100.0%
100.0%
98.8%
100.0%
99.1%
66.7%
82.8%
80.0%
82.1%
80.5%
33.3%
43.1%
61.3%
57.1%
48.9%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
3.8%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
141
DO YOU COMPOST
GREEN WASTE ON
YOUR PLOT?
HAS
YOUR
USE
CHANGED OVER THE
YEARS?
DO
YOU
GROW
ORGANICALLY ?
DO
YOU
LIVESTOCK
CHICKENS ?
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
98.2%
89.2%
90.2%
88.5%
88.5%
1.8%
10.8%
9.8%
11.5%
11.5%
70.9%
78.9%
75.0%
80.8%
77.6%
29.1%
21.1%
25.0%
19.2%
22.4%
96.6%
100.0%
95.2%
88.5%
99.2%
3.4%
0.0%
4.8%
11.5%
0.8%
87.7%
88.9%
80.5%
88.9%
82.9%
12.3%
11.1%
19.5%
11.1%
17.1%
84.5%
86.8%
87.2%
88.5%
90.9%
15.5%
13.2%
12.8%
11.5%
9.1%
89.2%
10.8%
83.6%
16.4%
100.0%
0.0%
73.3%
26.7%
93.3%
6.7%
93.5%
80.4%
6.5%
19.6%
71.9%
73.7%
28.1%
26.3%
100.0%
87.5%
0.0%
12.5%
80.6%
72.4%
19.4%
27.6%
84.1%
89.5%
15.9%
10.5%
Stourbridge
Grove
92.6%
7.4%
82.1%
17.9%
96.4%
3.6%
69.1%
30.9%
89.5%
10.5%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
66.7%
88.6%
86.5%
92.9%
89.1%
33.3%
11.4%
13.5%
7.1%
10.9%
80.0%
77.2%
76.9%
82.1%
77.4%
20.0%
22.8%
23.1%
17.9%
22.6%
100.0%
95.7%
100.0%
100.0%
97.2%
0.0%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
80.0%
80.7%
74.7%
89.3%
79.8%
20.0%
19.3%
25.3%
10.7%
20.2%
100.0%
89.7%
93.4%
89.3%
89.6%
0.0%
10.3%
6.6%
10.7%
10.4%
ALLOTMENT
SITE
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Ashley Godfrey Associates
KEEP
E.G.
ARE THERE ITEMS
THAT YOU WOULD
LIKE TO GROW OR
KEEP
ON
YOUR
ALLOTMENT
WHICH
YOU ARE NOT ABLE
TO DO AT PRESENT?
142
DOES
YOUR
ALLOTMENT
SITE
HAVE
COMMUNAL
COMPOSTING
FACILITIES?
IF YES, DO YOU USE
THEM?
DO YOU COLLECT AND
USE RAINWATER?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
2.0%
94.7%
5.1%
11.1%
64.8%
98.0%
5.3%
94.9%
88.9%
35.2%
20.0%
62.9%
50.0%
100.0%
44.9%
80.0%
37.1%
50.0%
0.0%
55.1%
63.2%
27.0%
77.5%
61.5%
52.5%
36.8%
73.0%
22.5%
38.5%
47.5%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
68.9%
31.1%
4.8%
10.5%
95.2%
89.5%
33.3%
50.0%
66.7%
50.0%
77.8%
26.3%
22.2%
73.7%
Stourbridge
Grove
83.0%
17.0%
42.2%
57.8%
42.9%
57.1%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
6.7%
9.5%
1.3%
11.1%
24.3%
93.3%
90.5%
98.7%
88.9%
75.7%
#DIV/0!
47.1%
100.0%
66.7%
47.2%
#DIV/0!
52.9%
0.0%
33.3%
52.8%
43.8%
45.7%
34.2%
71.4%
52.3%
56.3%
54.3%
65.8%
28.6%
47.7%
ALLOTMENT
SITE
Ashley Godfrey Associates
143
Section Three: Allotment Facilities
1.7%
0.0%
12.2%
0.0%
1.6%
55.0%
42.1%
24.4%
14.8%
36.3%
36.7%
44.7%
36.6%
70.4%
39.5%
5.0%
13.2%
26.8%
7.4%
16.1%
0.0%
0.0%
9.8%
3.7%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
3.7%
4.8%
22.7%
56.0%
21.3%
0.0%
0.0%
52.0%
36.0%
12.0%
0.0%
0.0%
77.4%
12.1%
22.6%
46.6%
0.0%
36.2%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
1.7%
8.6%
43.9%
13.8%
42.1%
13.8%
10.5%
13.8%
0.0%
50.0%
3.5%
Stourbridge
Grove
3.5%
49.1%
40.4%
5.3%
1.8%
49.1%
40.4%
8.8%
1.8%
0.0%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
0.0%
6.0%
8.8%
32.1%
17.1%
37.5%
29.9%
50.0%
42.9%
42.3%
56.3%
47.0%
37.5%
25.0%
34.0%
6.3%
13.7%
6.3%
0.0%
5.1%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
12.5%
33.3%
38.8%
71.4%
38.2%
62.5%
49.6%
45.0%
21.4%
40.4%
18.8%
12.8%
8.8%
7.1%
12.3%
6.3%
3.4%
2.5%
0.0%
3.3%
0.0%
0.9%
5.0%
0.0%
5.7%
Poor
Good
Poor
Below
Average
8.3%
0.0%
9.8%
0.0%
3.2%
Average
35.0%
47.4%
43.9%
51.9%
27.4%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
HOW DO YOU RATE THE ACCESS TO WATER ON YOUR
ALLOTMENT?
Very Good
40.0%
42.1%
26.8%
51.9%
50.0%
Below
Average
13.3%
10.5%
7.3%
0.0%
17.7%
Average
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Good
HOW DO YOU RATE THE QUALITY OF THE SOIL AT YOUR
ALLOTMENT SITE?
Very Good
ALLOTMENT
SITE
144
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Poor
Below Average
Average
Good
Poor
Below Average
Average
Good
Very Good
HOW DO YOU RATE THE QUALITY OF THE SECURITY
ARRANGEMENTS?
HOW DO YOU RATE THE QUALITY OF THE PATHS?
Very Good
ALLOTMENT
SITE
5.0%
10.8%
29.3%
3.7%
57.6%
41.7%
24.3%
39.0%
66.7%
41.6%
33.3%
54.1%
24.4%
25.9%
0.0%
10.0%
8.1%
4.9%
3.7%
0.8%
6.7%
2.7%
2.4%
3.7%
0.0%
3.3%
5.1%
2.4%
0.0%
23.4%
21.7%
43.6%
22.0%
44.4%
50.8%
55.0%
46.2%
43.9%
48.1%
19.4%
3.3%
5.1%
19.5%
7.4%
4.0%
13.3%
0.0%
12.2%
0.0%
2.4%
35.1%
47.3%
14.9%
1.4%
1.4%
37.3%
49.3%
10.7%
2.7%
0.0%
12.7%
8.8%
42.9%
57.9%
39.7%
29.8%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
3.6%
8.9%
9.1%
51.8%
27.3%
21.4%
14.5%
8.9%
45.5%
10.7%
Stourbridge
Grove
8.8%
45.6%
38.6%
3.5%
3.5%
7.1%
57.1%
23.2%
8.9%
3.6%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
0.0%
13.7%
12.5%
75.0%
23.4%
18.8%
51.3%
25.0%
25.0%
42.3%
56.3%
26.5%
46.3%
0.0%
26.7%
12.5%
5.1%
12.5%
0.0%
4.7%
12.5%
3.4%
5.0%
0.0%
2.8%
33.3%
2.6%
4.1%
46.4%
12.7%
46.7%
35.1%
12.2%
46.4%
37.4%
20.0%
40.4%
39.2%
7.1%
30.6%
0.0%
9.6%
16.2%
0.0%
8.1%
0.0%
12.3%
29.7%
0.0%
11.1%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
145
Ashley Godfrey Associates
146
Car parking
Cycle parking
Noticeboard
Security
Composting
Skips
Good access
within the site
A site shop
22.0%
42.0%
36.0%
76.4%
16.4%
7.3%
61.8%
18.2%
20.0%
32.7%
36.5%
30.8%
66.0%
24.5%
9.4%
92.5%
5.7%
1.9%
86.0%
12.0%
2.0%
87.0%
11.1%
1.9%
64.7%
23.5%
11.8%
60.0%
32.7%
7.3%
8.6%
28.6%
62.9%
58.3%
33.3%
8.3%
16.7%
16.7%
66.7%
31.4%
25.7%
42.9%
64.9%
24.3%
10.8%
89.7%
10.3%
0.0%
84.2%
15.8%
0.0%
73.7%
23.7%
2.6%
73.7%
21.1%
5.3%
64.9%
27.0%
8.1%
25.0%
33.3%
41.7%
67.5%
22.5%
10.0%
44.7%
34.2%
21.1%
28.2%
56.4%
15.4%
60.5%
36.8%
2.6%
94.6%
2.7%
2.7%
95.0%
5.0%
0.0%
90.2%
9.8%
0.0%
72.5%
27.5%
0.0%
70.3%
27.0%
2.7%
28.0%
48.0%
24.0%
20.0%
44.0%
36.0%
23.1%
34.6%
42.3%
20.0%
32.0%
48.0%
40.0%
44.0%
16.0%
84.0%
16.0%
0.0%
76.0%
24.0%
0.0%
88.5%
11.5%
0.0%
65.4%
30.8%
3.8%
59.3%
33.3%
7.4%
30.1%
41.6%
28.3%
87.2%
11.2%
1.6%
71.3%
16.4%
12.3%
36.5%
40.9%
22.6%
81.3%
17.1%
1.6%
91.9%
7.3%
0.8%
91.9%
7.3%
0.8%
95.1%
4.9%
0.0%
76.2%
18.9%
4.9%
59.5%
31.9%
8.6%
14.7%
38.2%
47.1%
86.5%
10.8%
2.7%
65.2%
20.3%
14.5%
41.2%
41.2%
17.6%
68.9%
28.4%
2.7%
88.0%
9.3%
2.7%
86.3%
12.3%
1.4%
92.0%
6.7%
1.3%
68.1%
26.1%
5.8%
52.9%
38.2%
8.8%
7.7%
26.9%
65.4%
9.4%
30.2%
60.4%
53.4%
27.6%
19.0%
32.7%
23.1%
44.2%
64.4%
30.5%
5.1%
87.7%
10.5%
1.8%
81.8%
16.4%
1.8%
50.0%
38.5%
11.5%
67.9%
21.4%
10.7%
54.5%
32.7%
12.7%147
41.8%
54.5%
25.0%
48.1%
69.6%
92.7%
88.9%
87.0%
67.9%
63.0%
Communal
shed
Toilets
Storage
Tools
Whitehill A.S.
1
80.4%
44.2%
2
14.3%
38.5%
3
5.4%
17.3%
Fairfax Road
1
66.7%
22.9%
2
16.7%
34.3%
3
16.7%
42.9%
Burnside
1
84.6%
42.1%
2
15.4%
39.5%
3
0.0%
18.4%
Vinery Road
1
60.0%
30.8%
2
20.0%
34.6%
3
20.0%
34.6%
Histon Road
1
70.0%
62.5%
2
18.3%
31.7%
3
11.7%
5.8%
Pakenham
Close
1
89.0%
62.7%
2
4.1%
28.0%
3
6.8%
9.3%
Blacklands
1
72.9%
26.8%
2
15.3%
32.1%
3
41.1%
Ashley Godfrey11.9%
Associates
Foster Road
1
51.9%
43.6%
Easy access to
the site
HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOWING TO YOU? ( IMPORTANT = 1, NEUTRAL = 2, UNIMPORTANT =3)
for
ALLOTMENT
SITE
Ashley Godfrey Associates
148
DO YOU HAVE ANY
PROBLEMS
WITH
PESTS OR WILDLIFE?
DID YOU HAVE ANY
EXPERIENCE
OF
VEGETABLE
GROWING
BEFORE
YOU TOOK ON AN
ALLOTMENT?
WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SEE
MORE
INFORMATION
ON
ALLOTMENT
GARDENING?
IF YES, WHAT SORT OF INFORMATION WOULD
YOU LIKE?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Noticeboard
Leaflets
36.4%
35.9%
39.0%
64.0%
64.8%
63.6%
64.1%
61.0%
36.0%
35.2%
57.1%
71.8%
68.3%
81.5%
77.2%
42.9%
28.2%
31.7%
18.5%
22.8%
54.5%
31.4%
37.5%
58.3%
44.3%
45.5%
68.6%
62.5%
41.7%
55.7%
60.0%
57.9%
47.4%
68.8%
54.1%
40.0%
36.8%
47.4%
25.0%
45.9%
Via
the
Internet
53.3%
52.6%
57.9%
50.0%
50.8%
57.5%
42.5%
59.5%
40.5%
29.2%
70.8%
52.4%
57.1%
47.6%
14.3%
45.2%
44.8%
54.8%
53.4%
65.1%
67.2%
34.9%
32.8%
48.3%
43.9%
51.7%
56.1%
76.5%
55.6%
44.1%
44.4%
32.4%
44.4%
0.0%
11.1%
Stourbridge
Grove
33.3%
64.9%
59.6%
40.4%
58.5%
41.5%
56.3%
50.0%
68.8%
12.5%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
46.7%
45.8%
41.3%
50.0%
47.7%
53.3%
54.2%
58.7%
50.0%
47.7%
53.3%
76.3%
85.0%
81.5%
70.8%
46.7%
23.7%
15.0%
18.5%
29.2%
53.8%
47.2%
37.7%
25.9%
43.6%
46.2%
52.8%
62.3%
74.1%
56.4%
25.0%
47.4%
50.0%
57.1%
55.3%
62.5%
50.9%
31.6%
42.9%
44.4%
62.5%
45.6%
50.0%
42.9%
49.9%
0.0%
8.8%
13.2%
14.3%
9.5%
ALLOTMENT
SITE
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Ashley Godfrey Associates
Other
6.7%
5.3%
15.8%
12.5%
9.8%
149
Section Four: Monitoring Sheet
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Male
Female
Over 75 years
60 to 74 years
16-24 years
45 to 59 years
GENDER
25 to 44 years
HOW OLD ARE YOU?
Under 16 years
ALLOTMENT
SITE
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
19.2%
17.5%
37.5%
20.5%
38%
57.7%
35.1%
34.4%
29.5%
30%
15.4%
33.3%
21.9%
34.8%
10%
7.7%
14.0%
6.3%
15.2%
46%
34.6%
43.1%
58.6%
40.2%
54%
65.4%
56.9%
41.4%
59.8%
0.0%
0.0%
46.2%
32.7%
17.3%
3.8%
63.8%
36.2%
0.0%
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
35.9%
11.9%
28.2%
23.7%
28.2%
47.5%
5.1%
16.9%
41.0%
40.7%
59.0%
59.3%
Stourbridge
Grove
0.0%
6.3%
25.0%
31.3%
37.5%
0.0%
53.3%
53.3%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
32.0%
15.7%
23.3%
9.5%
23.2%
38.0%
34.3%
17.8%
23.8%
31.5%
24.0%
35.2%
49.3%
61.9%
34.1%
8.0%
15.7%
11.0%
4.8%
11.2%
43.8%
44.2%
51.4%
41.2%
45.6%
56.3%
58.7%
51.4%
58.8%
55.3%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
150
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
(Please
Other
specify)
Looking after
home or family
Retired from work
the
Unable to work due
to
long-term
sickness or disability
Full – time Student
Unemployed
Self-employed
WHICH OF THESE BEST DESCRIBES YOUR SITUATION?
Employed
ALLOTMENT
SITE
56%
64.0%
48.2%
64.5%
42.9%
10%
12.0%
12.5%
6.5%
4.5%
0%
0.0%
3.6%
0.0%
0.9%
0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
4%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
2.7%
29%
20.0%
35.7%
25.8%
45.5%
4%
0.0%
7.1%
3.2%
5.4%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
62.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.0%
20.0%
4.0%
2.0%
70.0%
38.2%
7.5%
5.5%
0.0%
5.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
15.0%
49.1%
5.0%
1.8%
2.5%
0.0%
Stourbridge
Grove
53.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
6.7%
6.7%
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
57.1%
39.0%
47.9%
33.3%
49.6%
10.2%
10.5%
12.3%
14.3%
8.5%
2.0%
1.9%
0.0%
4.8%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
7.6%
1.4%
4.8%
2.6%
26.5%
40.0%
37.0%
47.6%
35.0%
2.0%
3.8%
8.2%
4.8%
4.6%
4.1%
2.9%
1.4%
0.0%
1.6%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
151
Ashley Godfrey Associates
82%
84.6%
93.0%
93.8%
83.2%
92.3%
89.7%
89.7%
93.8%
88.0%
86.1%
88.7%
85.0%
87.7%
33%
100.0%
12.5%
14.3%
30.5%
12.5%
50.0%
14.3%
100.0%
42.9%
29.5%
11.8%
100.0%
25.6%
67%
0.0%
87.5%
85.7%
69.5%
87.5%
50.0%
85.7%
0.0%
57.1%
70.5%
88.2%
0.0%
74.4%
94%
76.2%
82.0%
77.8%
89.4%
88.6%
65.6%
88.9%
70.0%
76.2%
81.7%
75.4%
92.9%
82.5%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.4%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
0.0%
0.9%
0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2.4%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
0.0%
3.1%
2.2%
10.0%
4.8%
0.0%
1.8%
7.1%
1.7%
Prefer not to
say
Bisexual
Lesbian
Gay
Heterosexual
YOUR SEXUALITY:
No
18%
15.4%
7.0%
6.3%
16.8%
7.7%
10.3%
10.3%
6.3%
12.0%
13.9%
11.3%
15.0%
12.3%
DOES THIS LIMIT YOUR
ACTIVITIES
IN
ANY
WAY?
Yes
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Stourbridge Grove
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
No
DO
YOU
CONSIDER
YOURSELF TO HAVE A
DISABILITY?
Yes
ALLOTMENT SITE
6%
23.8%
16.0%
14.8%
9.4%
9.1%
31.3%
8.9%
20.0%
19.0%
18.3%
19.3%
0.0%
14.9%
152
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Stourbridge
Grove
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
Other ethnic
group
Other Black
background
Other White
background
Chinese
African
Irish
Caribbean
TO WHICH OF THESE GROUPS DO YOU CONSIDER YOU BELONG?
British
ALLOTMENT
SITE
84%
81.0%
84.9%
81.5%
89.1%
0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
2.0%
5%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
3.0%
2%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
5%
19.0%
13.2%
14.8%
5.9%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
73.3%
6.7%
4.4%
0.0%
4.4%
13.3%
0.0%
0.0%
80.0%
94.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
17.1%
3.7%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
64.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
35.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
85.7%
91.9%
87.9%
94.7%
86.1%
2.4%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
5.3%
1.8%
11.9%
7.0%
15.5%
0.0%
9.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
153
Whitehill A.S.
Fairfax Road
Burnside
Vinery Road
Histon Road
Pakenham
Close
Blacklands
Foster Road
Stourbridge
Grove
Cherry Hinton
Rock A.S.
Council
Nuffield Road
Total
Bangladesh
ii
Pakistani
Indian
Other Asian
background
Other mixed
background
White
Asian
White and
Black
African
and
TO WHICH OF THESE GROUPS DO YOU CONSIDER YOU BELONG?
White and
Black
Caribbean
ALLOTMENT
SITE
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
0.0%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Ashley Godfrey Associates
154
APPENDIX D: COUNTY PLOTS PER 1000 HOUSEHOLDS
Ashley Godfrey Associates
155
County
Total households
Plots per
households
1000
Greater London
2842424
13
Greater Manchester
1023526
9
Merseyside
564633
10
So
South Yorkshire
524541
17
urc
Tyne & Wear
464114
19
West Midlands
1018857
16
West Yorkshire
832442
11
Avon
388080
22
ion
Bedfordshire
204769
18
al
Berkshire
287988
18
So
Buckinghamshire
243080
23
Cambridgeshire
262140
18
Cheshire
378447
9
y
Cleveland
218053
21
of
Cornwall
190718
8
All
Cumbria
197103
18
ot
Derbyshire
376749
14
Devon
421642
12
Dorset
275885
10
nt
Durham
242563
32
an
E Sussex
309198
15
d
Essex
611726
16
Gloucestershire
216033
16
Hampshire
620174
19
Herefordshire
266912
13
e
Hertfordshire
386570
17
Ga
Humberside
347539
17
rde
Isle of Wight
51836
14
Kent
604273
14
Lancashire
557454
10
Leicestershire
343713
23
Lincolnshire
238845
21
Norfolk
309766
18
Northamptonshire
228225
26
Northumberland
122447
28
N Yorkshire
287708
14
Nottinghamshire
408344
21
Oxfordshire
220126
23
Shropshire
159425
5
Somerset
187458
15
Staffordshire
404610
14
Suffolk
259793
22
Surrey
405670
15
Warwickshire
193118
21
W
Sussex
Ashley
Godfrey Associates
Wiltshire
293566
13
223286
15
ENGLAND
19215569
15
e:
Nat
ciet
me
Lei
sur
ner
s
Ltd
156
APPENDIX E: CATCHMENT MAPS FOR ALLOTMENT
SITES
Ashley Godfrey Associates
157
Ashley Godfrey Associates
158
Ashley Godfrey Associates
159
Ashley Godfrey Associates
160
Ashley Godfrey Associates
161
Ashley Godfrey Associates
162
Ashley Godfrey Associates
163
Ashley Godfrey Associates
164
Ashley Godfrey Associates
165
Ashley Godfrey Associates
166
Ashley Godfrey Associates
167
Ashley Godfrey Associates
168
Review of Allotment Provision
Ashley Godfrey Associates
169
Review of Allotment Provision
Ashley Godfrey Associates
170
Review of Allotment Provision
Ashley Godfrey Associates
171
Review of Allotment Provision
Ashley Godfrey Associates
172
Review of Allotment Provision
Ashley Godfrey Associates
173