Hello Again. Here's the previous thread where I introduced the idea (http://www.allotments4all.co.uk/smf/index.php/topic,68473.0.html).
Please will you take the survey again (http://www.emilyware.co.uk/gas/gas.php). It's now draft V0.2 so still needs some tuning.
You can see the weightings against the individual questions. Please let me have your comments on the weights and questions.
Ultimately I'd like us all to reach some kind of consensus about what a good allotment site looks like.
The Good Allotment Survey (V0.2) (http://www.emilyware.co.uk/gas/gas.php)
Many thanks.
Sorry but we are now down to 20%. The new survey is much worse than the first.
You seem to give great weight to things which we do not have but which actually we don't seem to miss.
ours got 32% but why do taps get less than dip tanks, we provide our own water butts that fill from the taps or im my case from my 2 sheds and the greenhouse.
88% now.
We have gone down to 84.. for three reasons which I will address.
Tanks..we don't have tanks we have taps every 30 metres with long heavy duty hoses attached to each one..I think this is better
Inspections..We don't need formal inspections because we have block reps who gently keep an eye on everything, have a quiet word if need be and everything is neat.We have a system in place to assist if there is illness that causes a problem and have a buddy system for holidays.
Huts.We don't need huts as we have free access to tools and rotavators etc, and we have community huts with access codes to get in, I have no need to store anything on my plot.
XX Jeannine
After I read Jeannine's reply I did it again and we now have 84%
We have taps near all the plots and we can fill our own water buts from them with hoses, but we are not allowed to water with a hose. (hope this makes sense)
18% not the best :)
I just read the comments on the first posting and wanted to add.I don't think the survey gives a true indication .I am no longer in the Uk but that shouldn;t make any difference.
Our site is very well organised.
We only take new members in the Spring and they have to attand a formal orintation meeting at which they get to meet the exec, see the rules before they sign up etc.
We grow food for the food bank in designated areas.
Everyone has to commit to 10 hours volunteer work at scheduled work parties and an annual task which may be as simple as cookies for an event, pruning some of our community fruit bushes or building bird houses.
We have public garden walks with folks on hand to answer questions about joining us or gardening in general.
We are totally organic and it is enforced, this may be a downer to some folks I guess but those of us who join up consider this important.
Our plots are small which for me is a big downer but we are allowed 4.
We have no empty plots and none that are not neat and so far I have not heard of any problems with grumbling about the exec, actually the opposite is true. Everyone is friendly, nobody is complaining and everyone does their bit cheerfully to maintain the whole place.
Overall our site is excellent and the questionarre does not reflect this.
I am sure I am not the only person who gardens on a good site with no problems.
XX Jeannine
There are just a few questions that are too subjective IMHO.
It is not an absolute that it is better if everything is voted for by all the members rather than decided by committee. On a large site this just isn't practical We would have to book a hall large enough for 150-200 people every month and then only 20 or 30 would turn up. Most people don't want to get involved in decision making, they just want to be left alone to garden and there would be pressure on them to become involved if a site wasn't run by someone. Marking a site down because it has a well run committe, elected democratically every year isn't well thought out.
Again, you're marking down on a subjective basis that dip tanks are better than taps. Our plots are 600 sq yds each. i really wouldn't prefer fetching water by can from a dip tank rather than filling butts placed strategically around my plots with a hose.
You mark down for having regular skips. With proper controls, these are an asset. Individual trips to the tip with broken glass or other non-compostable waste is, in itself, wasteful. Of course, in an ideal world, all waste would be eliminated, but you are judging this by your own preferences/beliefs rather than what the members might want. I consider a well run site to be one that is run in accordance with the members wishes, not articial and subjective criteria. Our members would be fuming if we told them we were no longer going to arrange skips.
Another very subjective question relates to the site being open to visitors. This is not, of itself, a good thing. If members don't want strangers wandering the site then it's nobodies business but the members. No-one can say it is a bad thing if that's how they want the site to be. We have some women who would feel vulnerable if our gates weren't locked. We are a hedged site so there is no overview by others and safety is therefore important. If we left our main gates open then some people would feel the need to lock their plot gate whilst working, not conducive to community spirit there eh! We also have concerns about travellers coming onto our car park.
In short, a few questions are more about how close our sites come to your own ideal rather than, in some cases, what is objectively desirable in a site.
Same as last time
Still think it is tricky to measure something so qualative and subjective. What is good and works on one site isn't the case on another
Good luck anyway :)
11% now :o
What Digeroo said: it's the Qs about policies and committees that killed us.
The points made by djbrenton regarding decision-making, watering and skips apply to our site too.
Our site is open to visitors on Sunday mornings, but is locked for the rest of the time. The allotments are set inside a park and not overlooked by houses so it wouldn't feel safe if the gates were open all the time.
Another thing I've just thought of - the environmental plan. We don't have a formal plan, but we do put up bird and bat boxes, have woodpiles, and hedgehog-friendly areas. We also inform plotholders about things like ladybird larvae and bee-attracting flowers. We discourage the use of rat-poison.
Would this count as a plan?
We're now 63% (silver), which I feel is about right for what we do and where we're trying to go.
On a few specific points:
Water: dip tanks win hands down over taps, which are open to abuse (ie. hosepipes). We have a dip tank on or near every plot, and lay in more as they are needed. Most Council sites are shielded from the real cost of water. We pay our own bill - and do our own repairs & maintenance - so no way are we going to allow hoses. We've just paid a bill of close on £1000 for the last 12 months!
Site policy: agree with DJ - it's unwieldy on a large site. Our AGM is well attended - upwards of half the membership - and they decide on priorities for the year ahead. We report back to them regularly, either through the official channels, or face to face.
Sheds: only a minor point, but our lease specifies that permission must be sought.
Socials: a formal evening event implies either a site hut or the hire of a hall. We don't do these because members haven't shown an interest, although our BBQ was well attended (even in the rain!).
Opening to the public: our members don't want the site open on a regular basis, although we do go out with plant sales at community events; and there are mutterings about running our own on site.
Skips: we don't have "regular" skips, but we do try to keep on top of rubbish; in fact we've had a skip every year for the past three years, but it's been discussed each time. (It costs £180 a go!)
Nothing about vacant or unattended plots? And - I don't know how it could be measured - about the "feeling" or "buzz" around the site. (I've had quite a few newcomers comment on this.)
Keep up the good work. (Although I agree that what works on one site doesn't necessarily work on another.)
30% for us but as we are a brand new site without a committee some of the questions could not be answered properly.
So far the Farmer owner is in the driving seat.
57% (Bronze) down from 69%...
The feedback page at the end is a good feature.. :)
35% on V0.1 and 29% on V0.2.
As mentioned by several other people, it is too subjective.
It is also skewed to larger sites that are much more likely to have facilities or processes in place.
Ours is a moderate-sized site (55 plots average circa. 5 poles). I would describe it as an effective, well-run site in its class.
We got silver this time.
I agree with djbrenton that some q's are a subjective.
A few years ago we asked everyone to stop filling the baths this is because people used to leave the taps running while they were watering and they were overflowing and wasting water. Also some people do not like dip tanks as they fear getting blight.
We are going to buy a cattle trough with a ballcock on one tap but will also put a tap there so people have the choice. If this is popular we will do the same on the other taps-eventually when got the money.
I've already said about site hut- nice but no- where for it.
No web site but I put my phone and mobile and e-mail address on all communications. I send out regular e-mails to keep people in touch- such as the blight warning I got recently
I publicise site meetings now so people know and can come and talk to us if they have any issues.
Still not sure about the dung thing- I know what you are saying but I have only just got a contact for free manure- but up until then I do not know how to get something for nothing. these things seem to be more available on sites where the council run the site ie not self managed :-\.
First purely social event is next monday night! :D :D :D A faith supper- unfortunatly I had to send another e-mail to explain what that was - I thought everyone knew :-[ :-[ :-[
However the site survey is a good idea and I know you are asking for our input to tweak it. I seem to have rambled-sorrry :-[ :-[ :-[
free dung/manure?
maybe this is available in urban areas, but as our sites are mainly on the edge of rural/agricultural land, and farmers don't see it as a waste issue, they see it as fertiliser for the land!
our tenants have to purchase their own manure from various farmers / livery / stables.
we do occasionally get offers of free manure, but this is the clearings from commercial turkey - rearing sheds, and contains mostly wood-chip.
still not completed the survey, as our lot are a group of allotment sites ( 14 sites)
Sorry to report.......a very poor 20%!
One other minor point I forgot. There's no free manure on our site, but there are large amounts of leaves dropped by the council which are left to turn into leaf mould which is free. There are a number of potentially free soil conditioners as distinct from dung, leaf mould and spent hops for example.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Quote from: pigeonseed on July 28, 2011, 20:49:12
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.
Quote from: Old Central on July 28, 2011, 20:53:34
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.
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
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?
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.
27%
35%
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.
Personally my plot is the one place I can go to get away from surveys, other people's judgement, international standards, H&S rules, best practise, management speak etc. I can get all that at work.
I would pay scant regard to any score they came from a survey such as this - actually I am beginning to think that the less a site scores the better it may actually be (for my tastes)...
If environmental issue are important what about points for a bus route. We have a two hourly service within ten minutes walk.
Can we have extra points for an annual flying display by the red arrows, and this year the itallian and saudi teams as well. ;D
By beiing a bit more creative answering the questions eg the car park which is not on site but is within easy access, I have now managed to get to pewter. I presume that that there is an environmental plan for the site since we are in a very environmentally sensitive position and hence the lack of sheds. We have access to a communal shed and do not seem to get points for that. I love the lack of sheds big time. A lot of people have wiast height storage boxes though I like the lower ones which double up as seats. Hope to build one.
I also think no water supply should give a site mich less than -1 it is a major issue I would suggest -5 at least.
I also think that flooding and other drainage issues and heavy clay soil should attract a minus. It seems very easy to attract minuses but not enough of our plusses are counted.
As stated before I would like points for inteaction with wildlife, fresh air, ability to affect policy, very well maintained site, lack of waiting list, well drained soil, beautiful uplifting surroundings, friendliness of site without formal meetings, access to advice, dipping butts allowed on every plot, peace and quiet, being allowed to get on with things without too many rules including the right to fail and to be allowed to continue to do so as long as there are not too many weeds, access to public transport, access to parking and of course well water since this does not need the expense of purification, storage and distribution and above all plus 5 for no scruffy sheds.
Enjoying an allotment for me is not about the politics. I think that the only policy needed is consideration for other people which would automatically include care with weedkillers and control of blowing weeds..
I only wish more landowners/farmers could be pursuaded to release a few acres for veg/flower growing. I also so not seem to want the things that get earn the points.
I hereby award my site my personal gold award without reservation and also with knobs on.