Topic: The Good Allotment Survey (V0.2)

[lavenderlux]

We get 88% on version 2 (up from78%)

We don't allow visitors free access except at open days but if anyone is interested in taking on a plot we'll make arrangements to see them and show them round. Also we have several school groups who visit 'by appointment' and we are very happy to have them - we also have two schools who have plots and visit us weekly

Our 'seed evening' is actually a 'Saturday morning coffee morning' held twice a year - in late September when the Autumn planting onion sets/garlic/broad bean seeds are in and we've received the donated 'out of date but still good' bulk seed packages from a seed supplier and plot holders have their own saved seed to exchange, and in early February when the potato orders are ready for collection and the spring planting onion sets and shallots are available at the trading hut

The 'site' in general doesn't have an environmental plan but our community and wildlife area does and this area is registered with our local 'biodiversity group';  however, we encourage our plot holders to garden 'environmentally friendly' and to report any unusual wildlife sightings, eg this year we've had lots of stag beetles and caterpillars of the 'cinnabar moth' for which reports were sent to the Bio group.
Plot holders are allowed to attend committee meetings but not take part in them, unless they specifically want to raise a point to be discussed, I think it would be impractical for all decisions to be made collectively.  We have an agm at which plot holders are invited to raise questions/ideas about the running of the field; the only questions we usually get are about 'bonfires' as we've banned them on our site but some people - a minority - keep wanting to overturn the ban (we have a shredder - operated by working party volunteers - to deal with ‘prunings’ and skips twice a year to deal with other rubbish but sometimes more often if a long time plot holder gives up - as one did recently - and leaves lots of items eg tumbled down sheds, lots of broken glass, bags of plastic bags, rotten pallets, old carpets etc – but any ‘metal’ goes to recycling)   We have houses along one side of our site and bonfire smoke is a nuisance/health hazard to them – and also to other people working on their plots.  By far the majority of our plot holders want a bonfire ban

FYM/dung – a local farmer will deliver to our site, we give contact details on our notice board for plot holders to make their own arrangements for delivery and paying, and this works well for us.

For what makes a good site:  I think ‘first impressions' are important, so a tidy appearance, well kept trackways and trimmed grass verges and pathways, community buildings in good repair, a notice board – viewable from outside the gates giving details of how to get an allotment and who to contact and that we’re happy to show people round prior to them going on the waiting list for a plot.

This is a well thought out questionnaire and a good idea to ascertain facilities available on a site.

[busy_lizzie]

That is very interesting. Our site got 63%, the silver award.

All the points they raised are not very clear cut as: We have bid to have a site compost toilet, though not everbody on the site wants one, particularly those near the proposed location. We have to buy manure from a local farm, but a member of the committee facilitates that. I help organise a scarecrow competition and picnic in May every year, in which I incorporate a plant and seed share. No one wants an open day as people are suspicious of people looking at their plots, and we do have a waiting list of 250 so don't need to attract new members. We have a flower and produce show every August, and always enter our site for the local councils North Tyneside in bloom award and members can also enter their individual plots if they want to. We don't have any room to accommodate a car park.  We could have a small one by taking away a few of the plots, but people would be outraged if this was done. The committee are elected by the membership to get on with the day to day of maintaing the site, though if something major does come along then it is put to the membership at the AGM. Members are allowed a shed, greenhouse or polytunnel but they need to seek permission so that the committee can judge whether it is the right size for the plot and won't overshadow someone else plot. I think that was all that was raised. Interesting though. busy_lizzie

[Unwashed]

Some interesting feedback so far, please keep it coming.

Note that the question on governance is about policy decision being taken by the site as a whole.  There's no suggestion that all day-to-day decisions should be taken collectively as manifestly a committee of management is the right way to go, but I suggest that best practice is for the committee to implement policy decided collectively at general meetings.

[Digeroo]

I am sorry but the questions and weightings do not made sense to me and are more about what you think is important Unwashed.

We have well water so good environmentally so this should give it more brownie points.  Having had problems with AP getting points for free manure is nonsense to me.  As stated before our site is great and to go down from a very poor 43 to 20 still does not match the 85% I would like to give it. 

There is a local flower and veg show so lots of people enter that, it would be impolite to organise another.   

We have 24 hour access for visitors and I would give that a negative mark rather than a positive one.

[Jeannine]

Our site is totally open to the public, no fences etc, we get people all the time coming around, usually folks who enjoy gardening and want to see what we are doing, we answer a lot of questions to would be gardeners.

We have zero vandalism as in mindless damage and I have not heard of stealing produce from sites, we have had a nightime raid recently and lost a rotavator from a locked shed, however our very expensive stuff, like the ride on mower is in a steel container.

We encourage visitors, our site is part of a Heritage park and one of it's purposes is to educate the public on good gardening. It seems to work  very well  for usl.

I think what the members want on their own site is key and this may not reflect the survey.

XX Jeannine

[caroline7758]

Down from 26% to 25%. The survey does seem to assume that all sites have some kind of management/ committee. Ours doesn't, the  council own it and take the money bu do nothing else, and there is no committee and nothing communal. It's every plot owner for him/herself! But there are only about 12 plots (plus another site the other side of town).

[Ellen K]

You need to find out what allotmenteers think makes a good allotment site and then devise a questionnaire to measure it.

As Digeroo said, the one you have is too selective towards your own agenda.

Asking here is a start but I am not sure you would get the whole picture as you need to hear from the silent majority too.

Have a look here at some of our survey results.  We are Council run with no self management structure on most sites - and no one even mentions it.

Most of the complaints are around uncultivated plots and gaps in path and fence maintanance.  No way would we want open sites; locations vary from posh to dangerous.  I get lager cans and syringes thrown over the fence on my plot - no way would I invite the locals round.

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/pages/allotments

[Robert_Brenchley]

I don't get why taps score less than dip tanks. We get dead leaves and grass cuttings delivered, but not manure. We've also got a communal orchard; we'll soon have two.

[Digeroo]

And we have bats , there should definitely be extra points for bats. ;D

Just had a thought you have no mention of soil types etc.  You seem to give more points for the social amenities than the practicalities and benefits of veg growing.  In Swindon for example there is an active Allotment Association so there is no need for each site there to hold events.   I see no point in having a rotavator available, actually I go to get peace and quiet so I would ban them totally if I got my way.

What is important is good management and it does not matter if this is a committee, the local authority or an individual.  Any of these systems seem to have good and bad examples.  So for me a site should get points for good management and not loose them because it is a particular system.    Though I can see with local authority sites it can make more sense for them to be run by interested people rather than run remotely from an office. 

And I agree about the weed killer Jeannine, the guy on the next plot has sprayed his and I can smell it everytime I go there.   

[pigeonseed]

My site's score's gone down as well  :( Now it's 45%, which sounds low, but it's still 'Bronze standard' which I'd say would be correct. The site has had some significant improvements made a few years ago, but could still be better.

I agree that it's hard to measure what makes a good allotment and what makes a bad one. But it's worth trying, so good on you, Unwashed. :)

I like the idea of the message at the end, which tells you how to improve.  :)

Some of the criticisms seem to be that people don't have exactly what you list, but have something equivalent (eg no manure, but leaf mold or not our own events, but other local events) so that would be easy enough to tweak in the wording (eg 'manure delivery or similar'...'your own events or access to other local events')

I know some plots find it difficult to get manure deliveries (our own!). But I do agree with Unwashed - it's a plus. (Aminopralyd aside  :-\)

Where there's evidence to support the scoring, that would be very valuable support for your survey. For example, if you have evidence that social events encourage people to grow successfully/stay on their plot/feel happy, you could feel confident recommending it, and scoring it higher than sites without.

I'd still like to see some scores for sites which support plot holders with problems, and sites which help beginners. (Our own would fail miserably!)

Do you have access to academic research in this area where there might be some? I might be able to look some stuff out for you if you'd like.

Oh and one more - adequate paths/access to each plot. We don't have this for some plots and it affects how easily they can be cultivated. Could this be added?

Thanks, Unwashed!
 

[Old Central]

Hi UW

I've tried both versions. I guess the reality is that there is a landlord's good allotment and there is a tenant's good allotment. Just to select one example then, for a landlord it will be good to reduce water use, green waste off site and skips, but conversely these can be perceived as bad by tenants based on your own rankings. These conflict with internationally recognised standards such as ISO 14001.

I suspect there is also the need for previous questions to define the answers to future ones in such a survey. It is immensely difficult to define what represents a good landlord if you have a priori assumed that a landlord is a bad thing.

Best wishes in this worthwhile endeavour.

OC
PS Feel free to PM me.

[Digeroo]

I think the basic idea is great. 

But there are so many things to be considered.  Perhaps one thing that is beginning to show that everyone has their own ideas of what they think is important so getting some kind of concensus about what is important will be not be easy. 

I loved visiting Squash 64s site and seeing the social side, but I can actually get social elsewhere, so the availability of the ground was paramount.

Also I think the length of the waiting list is also important. 

[Unwashed]

Do you have access to academic research in this area where there might be some? I might be able to look some stuff out for you if you'd like.

Hi P., appreciate your encouragement.

Dr. Richard Wiltshire is probably the leading accademic on allotments and contributed significantly to the Local Government Association's allotment management best practice guide Growing in the Community which I have largely based the metrics on, although I'm influenced by other sources too, not least discussions here.

[Unwashed]

Just to select one example then, for a landlord it will be good to reduce water use, green waste off site and skips, but conversely these can be perceived as bad by tenants based on your own rankings. These conflict with internationally recognised standards such as ISO 14001.

You create a false dichotomy.  The survey is neither from the landlord's nor the tenant's point of view, it defines its own point of view which, if it helps, is probably best described as sustainable in the broadest sense.

So the weighting for water for example, scoring dip-tanks over taps, recognising the legitimate need for allotmenteers to water their crops while also recognising the need to conserve an ecconomically and environmentally valuable resource.  My own feeling is that allotmenteers should be allowed to water how and when they like, but I've heard the evidence on A4A against hose pipes and on balance I believe the argument is well made.  I believe this agrees well with ISO 14001, and while I can't lay my hand on it I thought that was recommended as best practice by the NSALG.

The weighting for skips, scoring down sites that provide a skip, recognises the obligation on allotmenteers to minimise waste that goes to land-fill and rewards sites that take an innovative approach to this age-old problem, such as through a communal chipper.  I believe this agrees well with ISO 14001.

[Jeannine]

Our skip comes once a year for just a brief period to faciltate removal of old timber , broken pots etc etc. We have hoses but cannot use sprinklers.

XX Jeannine

[pumkinlover]

We have a shredder Simon for communal use.

We do not have a rotatvator, our allotments are all in good order and I do not see the advantage. There are plenty of no dig methods and I fail to see the environmental advantage.  Also maintenance issues - we provide wheelbarrows and having seen what certain members have done to them. (My OH does the maintenance :()

If environmental considerations are taken into consideration would a shredder or chipper not be included rather than a rotavator?

[Alex133]

Bronze for my site but so far as I'm concerned should be Gold with knobs on - it is a matter of personal priorities, I guess.
Some comments after submission came across as a bit patronising - 'yeh, I know loos would make life easier, duh' but they also cost a lot to build and maintain and I'd rather have a bucket in the shed than pay a lot more in rent. 

[Poolcue]

27%

[jimtheworzel]

35%

[Ellen K]

Then you need to change the title from "The Good Allotment Survey" to "The Eco-Friendly Allotment Survey".

How eco-friendly a site is is just one parameter in what makes it good.  They are certainly not synonyms at the very least.