ALLOTMENTS IN ENGLAND

REPORT OF SURVEY
2006

Prepared for the Office of the Deputy

Prime Minister
by Professor David Crouch
The University of Derby
IMPORTANT NOTE:

We estimate that questionnaires were received on less than half of

allotment sites in England which casts doubt on whether the findings
presented in the report relating to sites are valid. The low response
means that it is not possible to use this survey to estimate with
confidence the numbers of allotment sites in England; and that the other
findings relating to sites should be viewed with caution as they may not
be representative of all allotment sites.

Department for Communities and Local Government

1
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Executive Summary pages 2-
Chapter 2 : Introduction and context
Chapter 3 : Research Methods
Chapters 4-7 Allotments
Chapter 4: Supply
Sites and plots
Plot availability
Site status, ownership
Regional distribution
Comparison of supply and trends 1996-2005
Chapter 5: Demand
Waiting lists
Chapter 6: Site characteristics
Chapter 7: Policy
Chapter 8: Management practice
Chapters 9-10 City Farms and Community Gardens
Chapter 9: supply
Chapter 10: site characteristics: policy: management practice
Chapter 11: Discussion
Chapter 12: Conclusions and recommendations

Tables and figuresusedinthetext.

1.Comparison and trends, allotments, 1996-2005
2.Distribution of questionnaire return rate Allotments supply: regional distribution
3.Allotmnet ownership and status distribution
4.Legal status of allotments
5.Allotment status by plots by regions
6.Summary of key components, allotments.
7.Key trends analysis, allotments
8.Local councils that have disposed of allotment sites

2
9.allotment rent by council type
10.Average allotment rents across different status categories and by region
11.Council audit of open spaces.
12.Number of allotment sites in relation to allotment policy document
13.Overall and rent management responsibility
14.Management of allotment sites by region
15.Authorities` responsibility for handling rents
16.Maintenance and organisation of waiting list
17.authorities responsible for site perimeter
18.Authorities responsible for water supply
19.ciuncils offering incentives for disability by type
20.incentives to plotholders
21.types of antisocial behaviour
22.provision of facilities to encourage environmental friendliness
23.Ownership of land for city farms and community gardens
24.City farms and community gardens: number of garden plots, total areas
25.General facilities available on city farms and community garden sites and by region
26.Facilities for individuals with disabilities, city farms and community gardens
27.Activiites and events taking place on city farm and community garden sites
28.Anti-social behaviour on community garden sites
29.Activities and events taking place on city farms and community gardens by region

Appendices
1.Research methods and questionnaires
Questionnaire design
Questionnaire distribution
The questionnaires
Commentary on trends comparison
Commentary on response levels
2..SurveyQuestionnaires
3.Summary glossary, allotments, city farms and community gardens

Appendices tables and figures.

1..Convergence factors used in the estimate of allotment areas and rental values.
2..Method of distribution of Allotment Policy and Site Questionnaires
3.Key, components of allotments by unitary authorities, London Boroughs and Metropolitan Districts

3
Chapter 1. Executive Summary
This Report present the results of the2005survey of allotments, city farms and
community gardens in England. This Survey and its analysis were undertaken by the
University of Derby between 2004and 2005. The Survey included attention to the
following:.
 Supply, and trends in supply [comparing current evidence with a similar previous
survey undertaken in 1994-6
 Demand
 Site characteristics
 Policy
 Management practice
Regarding city farms and community gardens, their:
 Supply. This is the first time such data has been collected and analysed.
 Site characteristics; Policy; Management practice

This Report presents an analysis of these categories of data, discussion and conclusions.
From these, recommendations are made for consequent handling of allotment matters,
including their future monitoring. It presents a discussion on emerging issues concerning
city farms and community gardens.

This Report accompanies two significant data sets, on Allotments, and on City Farms and
Community Gardens. These datasets, provided by this Survey, accompany a GIS database
whose locational data were provided through the Survey.

Brief context on Allotments, and on City Farms and Community Gardens.

Allotments
An allotment is a rented plot of ground let and used for the purpose of domestic
cultivation, principally but not exclusively for growing food. During several hundred

4
years allotments have become a significant feature of culture and landscape. For over one
hundred years local councils have held the responsibility to provide allotments to the
public in response to demand for them. Some adjustments to legislation have followed
during the last one hundred years, but their purpose and the local authorities` duty to
provide has remained the same [Crouch and Ward 2003]. Allotments have for this time
span been a feature distributed unevenly across cities, towns and villages. Allotments
have a history of wide ownership type, and there remain allotments in private ownership.
Of course, these sites do not fall within government policy and regulations, and evidence
of their existence and character tends not to be recorded in the public domain; their
ownership and location is very diverse. Allotments in the ownership and management of
local councils were, until the nineteen nineties, in the remit of the Ministry of
Agriculture. They then became part of the responsibility of the Department of the
Environment, now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This change in responsibility
reflects their acknowledgement of significance in terms of several policy arenas, as noted
below.

The popularity of allotments has varied over the last on hundred years, peaking
significantly during the two world wars, and especially following the second world war,
experienced a decline as a result of the association with rationing, and as new
development spread often into areas of land including allotments. Their popularity was
reversed during the nineteen seventies as a result of increasing attention to diet, organic
food and wider environmental issues, including interest in self-produced food growing.

The subsequent three decades have been characterised by shifts in pressure of land
development and negotiations for these popular concerns that have frequently prioritised
allotments as a key source for their delivery [Crouch and Ward Ibid].

Following the 1997 Report on Allotments in England [DETR/Anglia 1997], the

Department of the Environment Inquiry into the Future of Allotments identified a number
of areas for policy attention where allotments were to be engaged [House of Commons
1998]. These included environmental sustainability, open space quality, health, an

5
accessible resource for older people and those with disability and community building. A
subsequent investigation into the opportunities for best practice for allotments, including
policy connectedness and delivery, was made [LGA 2001].

Allotment sites, facilities, security, land prices and development pressures, accessible
populations, management delivery and local council policy are all very varied. Therefore,
generally aggregated evidence on allotments does not significantly reveal the dynamics
of their operation in significant detail. This is evident in the data sest considered in this
report, and the commentary possible.

This Survey provides the first updating of data concerning a wide range of allotments
policy and management since the Survey of 1997.

City Farms and Community Gardens. www.farmgarden.org.uk

City farms and community gardens are normally members of a framework registered
charity, The Federation of City farms and Community Gardens. Each `garden` and `farm`
is independent, and normally relates in its business to a local council or private agency.
The Federation represents 65 city farms, more than 1000 community gardens, 75 school
farms and 20 community-led allotment groups in the UK. The Federation exists to
support, promote and represent groups which are engaged in community-led development
of open space through locally managed farming and gardening. It serves as the national
sub sectoral umbrella body or infrastructure organisation, providing services to member
voluntary organisations within a thematic sub sector.

City Farms
City Farms are sites normally located within cities, where a range of activities can take
place, related to livestock keeping and cultivation, characterised by a strong public
participation through organised visits and public access. The public accessibility requires
areas of the farms to be set aside for circulation and public events. City farms are
significantly community-run and generated through community activities, increasingly
managed on a very professional basis through the umbrella auspices of the Federation of

6
City Farms and Community Gardens. City farms originated during the nineteen seventies
and the growing popularity of making non-urban environments and in particular animals
accessible to city populations, with a purpose too of engaging those, especially children,
living in more crowded areas of cities with little or no experience of farming.

Community Gardens
Community Gardens developed from the city farms `movement` and drew upon models
in such as the USA for regenerating areas of effectively vacant land in cities for the
purpose of community-oriented and responsive cultivation, including food growing, on
individual and on shared plots of various sizes. Thus, Community Gardens resemble
allotments in that they are available for cultivation. They are firmly in a tradition of
community involvement, and tend to be used by plotholders from their immediate
neighbourhoods, sometimes directly linked with particular adjacent housing schemes.
They are not held within particular government policies for provision, but are recognised
by government as a legitimate supplier of appropriate land for community cultivation.

During the nineteen eighties community gardens became part of the City Farms
federation, and now the appropriate body is called The Federation for Community
Gardens and City Farms. It is not the requirement of all city farm, or community gardens,
to be associated within the Federation, and many remain independent.
CFCG website
The present Survey included all three categories, Allotments, City Farms and Community
Gardens, in an effort to deliver comprehensive evidence concerning these three, distinct
but related forms of land availability and their contribution to environment and landscape
character and quality, utilisation by the general public, service for opportunities of
cultivation and their related benefits for health, community building and individual and
community responsibility for the environment of urban and rural areas.

Data on city farms and community gardens had not previously been collected.
www.farmgarden.org.uk

7
Asummary glossaryoftermsisgiveninAppendix3.:

1.2.Main findings: Allotments,

1.2.1.Allotments:
 Evidence was received for only one half of the estimated allotments in England.
 There are 7,000 Sites and 245,000 Plots
 The Total Sites area is 4,785hectares[16,987acres]
 5.2 plots are available for every 1,000 population
 13.4 plots are available for every 1,000 households
 The waiting list for allotments is 14,000
 There are 25,131 vacant plots
 The average allotment site has 39 plots, range c.10-400.
 Most allotments sites are owned by local authorities, a small proportion are
privately owned.
 The average rent for theusual10rodplotis£31,varyingbetween £24 in the East of
England to £46 in London

Comparisons and trends 1996-2005 demonstrate a reduction of plots and sites;

reduction of vacant plots, and an increase in waiting list numbers.

Table 1. Comparisons and trends 1996-2005

Feature 1996 2006
Total sites 7,796 7,000
Total plots 295,630 245,000
Total plots vacant 43,750 25,131
Total waiting list 12,950 14,000

1.2.2.Three hundred Statutory Sites have of various sizes and parts there of are recorded
as disposed of since 1996 [ODPM records];500 Temporary Sites [not protected by special
legislation] are estimated as disposed of since 1996.This evidence suggests a continued
disposal of sites, accompanied by an increase in vacant plots; more efficient use of

8
remaining plots, and reduction in overall availability to the population.Vacant plots may
be associated with a lack of local public awareness of their availability, that depends on
modes and efficiency of site and plot promotion. These aggregate observations may belie
local correlations between these factors.

1.2.3.A significant minority of local councils are engaging allotment in their open space,
environmental quality, community opportunity and other related policy areas. However,
this is very uneven. Promotion of sites is also very uneven, and there is a significant
surviving use of merely on-site notices that may lack popular visibility.

1.2.4.Four in ten of the one half of councils responding have Open Space Strategies. It is
not known how allotments are engaged in these. An Open Space Audit is required by
PPG17.

1.2.5.Approximately one third of the councils that responded in the survey have some
form of facility or instruction to encourage environmentally friendly use of some of their
sites.

1.2.6.Most allotment sites from responding councils are fenced, and supplied with water.
The quality of this provision is not recorded.

1.2.7.Significant minorities of councils have special facilities for those with disabilities,
and encourage those who may be socially excluded. A significant minority of councils
have events, educational use and other public use of some of their sites..

1.2.8.Most allotment sites are managed by local councils, including especially rent
handling. A significant minority of sites are managed by Allotment Associations.

1.2.9.Where they are maintained, waiting lists remain the responsibility of local councils
in the main.

9
1.2.10.Most allotment authorities identify some form of vandalism.

1.3 Main findings: City Farms and Community Gardens.

1.3.1.City Farms
 Evidence was received for 36 City Farms, with 113 plots for individual or shared
[`community`] cultivation. Individual plots are extremely varied in size and
number on City Farm sites.
 These sites total an area of 109 hectares [300 acres]
 Sites are managed locally, and significantly offer community involvement, public
visits, educational use, and have a range of livestock.

1.3.2.Community Gardens
 evidencewasreceivedfor301 Community Gardens
 These sites include 864 plots for individual or shared cultivation
 These sites occupy in total 227 hectares [561 acres];
 The average site size 0.9hectares [2.3acres]
 Sites are managed locally, with significant member involvement. A significant
number of sites offer some level of community involvement, and public visits,

1.3.City Farms and Community Gardens

1.3.1.City farms and Community garden sites are generally well supplied with facilities,
including those for people with disability.

1.3.2.Almost all sites have perimeter fencing and water supply; Over half of sites have a
community building; Nearly two thirds are furnished with toilets; One in six have waste
skip provision;

1.3.3.Nearly two-thirds have facility for those with disability, Three quarters have
wheelchair access, Almost one half disability access toilets, One half have an

10
accessibility slope, One half have raised beds for cultivation, One third have a sensory
garden. One in twenty have a braille facility.

1.3.4.City Farms and Community Gardens exist to facilitate local-community relevance

and participation and not only for individual plot cultivation. Thus, their management and
facilities, including access and events are related to the wider public and educational
groups.

1.4.Recommendations
 Local councils be further engaged in building their promotion of allotments
 Local council maintain consistent records on all site disposals
 A selective assessment be made of the efficiency and effectiveness of types of
promotion in different localities; in relation to the procedures for site disposal
 An analysis of rents and site services and their efficiency be made
 The role of allotments in relation to local council open space policy and practice
be intensified, in order to obtain best value from this landholding.

11
Chapter.2 : Introduction and context

2.1.In 2004 the ODPM commissioned this Survey to produce a Report and
comprehensive dataset concerning Allotments, City Farms and Community Gardens in
England in the following way:
 carry out a survey of allotments, and of community gardens and city farms in
England;
 produce a report and summary detailing findings;
 develop a database of information on allotments, community gardens and city farms,
including location details;
 Inform the locational GIS dataset on allotments and city and community gardens in
England.

2.2.It was also intended that this Survey may produce time and trend comparisons with
the Survey of Allotments in England 1997. However, for reasons identified in the
Research Methods Appendix 1 this is possible with some caveats that a complete dataset
was not achievable.

2.3.Data from this survey commentary on the developments of allotments policy in

relation to particular areas of wider local council policy [LGA 2001].

12
3 : Research Methods

3.1.The Survey was undertaken in three parts:

 An initial questionnaire was sent to all local authorities [exclusive of Parish and
Town Councils]. From this questionnaire, town and parish councils known to
have allotment sites were identified.
 All councils responding positively to the first stage were sent a questionnaire on
Policy
 All councils identified with responsibility for sites were sent a Questionnaire on
their sites.
 The Federation of City Farms and Community Gardeners contacted known sites
in order to arrange completion of a separate questionnaire distinctly targeted to
CFCG matters [CFCG do not have individual policy as such]

3.2.Very thorough and persistent follow up methods were used to secure the highest
achievable rate of return for allotments, and via the Federation [FCFCG]. A persistent
follow through with its members.
All data sets from these components were analysed using SPSS.
A fully detailed Appendix provides the full details of the Method used.

3.3.Council response varied by category across the different Questionnaires [local

authorities only].District, Unitary, Metropolitan Districts and London Boroughs are the
main policy units for allotments, and most allotments are owned by local councils.
Similarly, they are responsible directly, or through Town or Parish Councils, for the
management of allotment sites in their ownership, possibly also with the responsibility
being shared with associations of representative plotholders, Allotment Associations.
Over three-quarters of Met councils supplied data on policy; all supplied data on sites.

13
Two thirds of Unitary, London Borough and District councils [approximately] supplied
data on policy and on sites. All Met counties supplied site data.

3.4.No consistent source of Private Sites exists. Some local councils were able to identify
sites

Table 2. Distribution of questionnaire return rate:

Allotments
Policy Questionnaire
County councils 1 of 48 [2%] County councils do not normally have
responsibility on allotments
District councils 151 of 263 [57%]
Unitary Authorities 38 of 60 [63%]
Metropolitan Districts 29 of 37 [78%]
London Boroughs 22 of 32 [66%]

Site Questionnaire
County councils 10 of 48 [21%]
District councils 168 of 263 [64%]
Unitary Authorities 38 of 60 [63%]
Metropolitan Districts 37 of 37 [100%]
London Boroughs 28 of 32 [66%]
Town and Parish Councils* 2,060 mailed with questionnaire, 512 submitted completed
data; 727 replied that they have no sites. An additional number, unrecorded, were soured
from District council information.

*A number of Town and Parish Councils are responsible for allotments [ownership,
management and maintenance]. These were sourced through those responding positive in
1996, and through current information from District Councils. However, there are over
7,000 Town and Parish Councils in England. The 1996 response from a thorough check
on especially Parish Councils over a long time only realized partial response. Therefore
the total for which the survey has data may under-represent.

3.4Comment: Diversity within the data set

3.4.1.This Survey sought complete response as a full audit of sites, all categories. After
exhaustive technical effort to yield a full audit, the Survey was competed with the
response rate given above[Table ]. The data is not derived from a selected, category-

14
stratified sample. The performance of allotments, by site owners/managers and by
individual tenants, is very diverse. It is therefore important to attend to the distribution of
response between different categories of local councils, as this is one structured guide to
the diversity of their policy, management and use. Key aspects of data are considered in
terms of the stratification of council response. In, for example, the evidence on policy
development by local councils, there is a significant difference in policy development
between district and metropolitan councils. Moreover, the response rate in particular
sections of the questionnaires, on policy and on sites, whilst uneven in all categories, is
significantly different between these categories of councils. These matters are returned to
in the chapter on discussion of the evidence, and in the recommendations therefrom.

3.4.2.Furthermore, it is not possible at the scale of this data, for England, to ascertain the
degree of completeness for evidence concerning smaller local councils, ie parish
councils. Many of the sites relating to parish councils are owned and fully managed by
those councils. Others are owned and managed by their respective district councils. It
may be that considerable numbers, perhaps thousands of sites, are in the former category.
The 1996 survey was supported by a regional network of informants, at great length and
time. This was not undertaken for the present survey.

3.4.3.An attempt was made to provide data that would enable correlation between
elements of policy and management, and delivery of efficiency in site and plot use. In the
event, the dataset is unable to yield this, as the evidence needed would require much
closer attention, for example, to cause and effect, thus identifying timing of policy
elements and effect.

3.4.4.The present survey collected locational data to inform a Geographical Information

System database. The complexity of the two questionnaires, and the requirement to
include locational data, may be reasons for the incompleteness of this response. This
matter is also pursued in the recommendations.

15
3.4.5.In conclusion, this variation in received data robustness requires caution on
interpreting regional and other distributional tables that are presented; there is significant
diversity, too, in the response to individual questions on site and policy categories.

3.4.6.There response rate to the City Farms and Community Gardens questionnaires is
summarized as follows. The Federation of City Farms and Community gardens represents
65 city farms, more than 1000 community gardens. Data in this survey was received from
36 city farms and 301community gardens, representing approximately one half and one
third respectively.

16
Chapters 4-8 Allotments

4.Supply

4.1.There are an estimated 7,000 Sites and 245,000 Plots. Of these, the total sites area is
estimated to be approximately 4,785 hectares [16,987acres].The waiting list for
allotments currently totals 1400, with 25,131 vacant plots. Details of waiting lists are
presented in the chapter on Demand. The estimated area of allotment is unreliable, as this
is at odds with available evidence on disposals, as discussed below.

4.1.1.The average allotment site has 39 plots, with a range of between 10 and 400.
[Data received from the Survey indicates: 3,418 allotment Sites; 139,939 plots]
Note: An informed estimation suggests that the received data under-estimates the actual
total [see response rates, Research Method above]. In order to secure a more accurate
estimation of the actual total, including areas of non-response, evidence derived from the
previous survey [1996] was used, subtracting from this the number of sites disposed of
recorded at ODPM [for Statutory Sites] and an estimate there from for Temporary Sites
[that need no central government approval].[fully explained in Appendix 1]

4.2.There are 14,000 allotment plots that are currently vacant; approximately one in six of
all plots available. Plots may be vacant through lack of local demand, the unattractiveness
of site [eg poor ground]. Plots may also be vacant on account of a lack of awareness of
their availability, if they are not being promoted. .It is evident that there a need for some
vacant plots at any time for availability for those on waiting lists. Temporary illness and
death mean periodic vacant plots. Moreover, some local councils may vacate plots in
preparation for work on sites, and for vacating [parts of] sites. Vacant plots are considered

17
in relation to later evidence on demand [waiting list numbers] and in relation to the trend
data, below.

4.3.Approximately 5 plots are available for every 1,000 population, 13 plots are available
for every 1,000 households. Availability of allotments by households better reflects the
use of allotments than by individuals. Frequently more than one member of a household
participates in working one plot listed for the individual household.

4.4.The major holding of allotments is owned by local councils, on council land. A small
proportion is on land in private ownership. Whilst the certainty of status is unclear in
nearly one quarter of council sites, there is a three-to-one ratio between Statutory and
Temporary sites.

Table 3: Ownership and status distribution.

Local Council Owned [all levels] 94%

Statutory 54%
Temporary 18%
Status unknown was given 22%

Privately owned 6%

4.5.The regional distribution of allotments in England is very uneven. The south-east

records the highest number of sites and plots; the south west, the fewest. This variation is
historically evidenced [Crouch and Ward 2003]. It may be that this variation is no longer
so relevant, and adjustments to availability may be needed. Similarly, the availability of
plots by population and households varies significantly.
The south east has the highest number of vacant plots and also waiting lists, suggesting
that plots may not be in the right location for current populations and their demand. The
west midlands has the smaller waiting list.

Table 4: Legal status of allotments.(statutory, private, temporary, unknown) by

18
Region

Region Statutory Private Temporary Unknown Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % within

of within of within of within of within of Region
sites Region sites Region sites Region sites Region sites
East of 194 49.1% 34 8.6% 94 23.8% 73 18.5% 395 100.0%
England
East Midlands 145 42.8% 42 12.4% 48 14.2% 104 30.7% 339 100.0%
London 159 57.0% 8 2.9% 53 19.0% 59 21.1% 279 100.0%
North East 162 57.4% 7 2.5% 88 31.2% 25 8.9% 282 100.0%
North West 175 44.8% 5 1.3% 134 34.3% 77 19.7% 391 100.0%
South East 304 54.4% 50 8.9% 92 16.5% 113 20.2% 559 100.0%
South West 172 49.6% 28 8.1% 48 13.8% 99 28.5% 347 100.0%
West 329 70.9% 17 3.7% 18 3.9% 100 21.6% 464 100.0%
Midlands
Yorkshire & 209 57.7% 9 2.5% 52 14.4% 92 25.4% 362 100.0%
Humberside
England 1849 54.1% 200 5.9% 627 18.3% 742 21.7% 3418 100.0%

4.5.1.There is a tendency to smaller plots [30 plots per site] in the north-west.
The largest numbers of plots per site are in the east midlands [42 plots per site]. The
larger the site, it has normally the greater the number of plots. Most sites are mainly
comprised of regular, ten rod plots.

4.5.2.The availability of allotments per thousand population and households varies

significantly. Per thousand households this varies between 3.5 per household in the north-
west to 6.9 in the north-east; in terms of population between 8.5 north-west to 19.1 in the
north-east].

19
 Table5: Allotment sites and plots by regions [averages]

Region No. of Plots Plots per 1000 Plots per 1000 % Vacant plots
LAs per site households* population* out of total plots
East of England 35 40.5 11.4 4.7 15.5
East Midlands 28 46.0 16.6 6.9 19.2
London 13 58.4 16.0 6.2 18.4
North East 18 33.0 19.1 8.2 8.0
North West 38 29.6 8.5 3.5 11.0
South East 48 38.2 12.1 5.1 13.2
South West 26 36.9 11.0 4.7 4.6
West Midlands 17 42.1 13.7 5.6 8.8
Yorkshire & 18 37.4 13.0 5.4 17.8
Humberside
England* 241 38.7 12.6 5.2 13.4
* Population statistics were taken from the 2001 Census for Local Authorities that responded to the allotment
survey. The population for England is not the total population but was derived from the sum of the populations for
each of the respondent Local Authorities.

Table6.:Summary of key components of allotment (England, regions)

Thistablerelatesthetotalsreceivedtotheestimatedtotals.

Region No. of LAs Total Sites Estimated Total plots Estimated Total Vacant Estimated Total o
from survey true total no. true total no. plots true total no. waiting
of of plots† of vacant
sites† plots†

East of England 35 626 888 25338 35926 3915 5551 948

East Midlands 28 462 655 21231 30102 4085 5792 287
London 13 299 424 17458 24753 3205 4544 1119
North East 18 492 698 16221 22999 1292 1832 1514
North West 38 754 1069 22309 31631 2464 3494 1585
South East 48 866 1228 33112 46948 4361 6183 2476
South West 26 404 573 14916 21149 693 983 1418
West Midlands 17 424 601 17858 25320 1566 2220 156
Yorkshire & Humberside 18 610 865 22813 32345 4050 5742 947
England 241 4937 7000 191256 271173 25631 36341 1045

† the estimated true total is derived by multiplying the current survey statistic by a factor of (7000 / 4937) =
1.4178651. This assumes an even distribution between the regions of the extrapolated additional sites, which may
not necessarily be correct.

20
 * Population statistics were taken from the 2001 Census for Local Authorities that responded to the allotment
survey.
The population for England was obtained by taking the sum of the populations for each of the respondent Local
Authorities. This figure should not be confused with the true total population of England.

4.6.Allotment trends1996-2005
4.6.1.A comparison of supply and trends 1996-
2005demonstratesthefollowingkeycomponents.
The evidence from the disposals data and the received database from the present survey
demonstrate a continuing reduction of plot numbers, by approximately 15%, one in six.

4.6.2.Approximately 300 Statutory Sites or parts thereof have been disposed of since
1996 [ODPM data local council returns]. [local councils are legally required to obtain
Statutory Sites disposal approval]. An estimate** of a further 500 disposed sites since
1996 is made. The sites [or parts thereof] disposed of were mainly ones with a
significantly higher rate of vacancy than sites overall. This trend is less steep a decline
than that identified up to 1996. However the evience collected does not provide a reliable
figure from which to estimate total allotment area, or local council land holding. The
profound drop in area suggested by the composite trend table, below, does not correlate
with evidence, for example, regarding disposed sites.

4.6.3.One half of the allotments recorded in the national census in 1970 have now been
used for other purposes. Commensurate with this is the high reduction in the number of
vacant plots. This may indicate resultant higher efficiency of use owing to local site
disposals, as well as improvement in plot and site management, and/or increased demand
over diminishing supply. Increases in the waiting list have continued in the recorded
years 1970, 1996, 2005, [explained further in Chapter five: Demand]. There is a
proportionate reduction in availability of plots by households. In 1996 there were 15 plots
per thousand households; in 2005 there are 13.4 plots per thousand households

4.6.4.Furthermore, as the subsequent chapters demonstrate, there is evidence of

significant improvement in the sites that do remain, in terms of services and linkage with

21
policy. The distribution of status and ownership of allotments between 1996 and 2005 is
difficult to clarify owing to the large proportion of `status not known` given by
respondents. Curiously, the figure remains the same [as given] as in 1978. Once again,
this figure may be unreliable, as the datasets are very uneven and variable.

Table7.: Key trend analysis

Date sites plots acreage vacant waiting Statutory

List [see `Demand`] [percentage]

1970 n/a 532,964 58,242 111,126 5,870 49

1978 n/a 497,793 49,873 23,178 121,037* 54
1996 7,796 295,630 25,393 43,750 12,950 74
2005 7,000 245,000 16,987** 14,000. 25,631 54-64**

Notes
Data 1970-1996, DETR/APU Report of Survey of Allotments in England, 1997]
*1977 figure used as proxy, 1978 n/a]
**Thisestimatedfigureistobetreatedwithcaution,derivedfromtheaveragecollectedsitesizean
dadjustedforestimatedsitetotals.
***Actual Data Received accounts for responses from only 3418 sites. Range indicates
estimate from the listed `unknown site status` category.

4.6.4.Evidence of site disposals suggests that 300 Statutory Sites have of various sizes
have been disposed of since 1996 [ODPM records].An estimate has been made that 500
Temporary Sites [not protected by special legislation] have been disposed of since 1996.

4.6.5. Evidence obtained from local councils who responded regarding the disposal of
their sites [all categories] suggests that the result may be a more efficient use of
remaining plots, and/or a reduction in overall availability to the population. Councils that
have disposed of sites are more likely to have a greater proportion of vacant plots. This
suggests that sites are being disposed of where demand for allotments is lower. This
evidence appears in Table 8.

22
Table 8:Local Authorities that have disposed of sites since 1996 and their respective
percentages of Vacant Plots

% Vacant plots Have sites been disposed since 1996? Total Las
Yes No No. of LAs % of Las
No. of LAs % of LAs No. of LAs % of LAs
0 - 5.9 % vacant plots 19 31.1 48 41.4 67 37.9
6 - 19.9 % vacant plots 16 26.2 45 38.8 61 34.5
20 - 100 % vacant plots 26 42.6 23 19.8 49 27.7
England 61 100.0 116 100.0 177 100.0

23
5: Demand

5.1.Allotment demand is characterised by names on waiting lists. The present total

number of individuals and households seeking plots as represented on waiting lists is
14,000. There are 25,631 vacant plots. Plots vacant as percentage of total plots: 13.4.
[this figure of waiting list lengths is an estimate bearing in mind the response on this
question. The actual response figure was 10,450 names on Waiting Lists].

5.1.2.Length of time waiting lists varies greatly at a regional and local level.
Approximately two thirds of councils responding in this survey maintain awaiting list..
[only 228 councils responded].

5.1.3.Relationships between the size of waiting lists and the provision of allotments is
varied and gives no regular picture. There is some evidence that where waiting lists are
organised by site there is a lower waiting list. This could reflect that there is a faster
allocation route, or that there is lower demand in such sites. However, it is likely to be the
former. In England overall, in most local councils people wait 7-12 months to be
allocated a plot. In some areas, waiting time may be significantly reduced to only a few
months. This may relate to the efficiency of managing placement from the list, and to the
local availability of sites. In general terms, waiting lists lengths vary considerably by
region. Over one half wait over one year in the southwest; in the west Midlands only ten
percent wait that period, whilst over one quarter are allocated within one month.

This data is presented, for completeness of comparison, in TABLE 7 [above].

24
Chapter 6: Site and plot characteristics

6.1.Plot sizes of allotments in England are normally approximately 10m x 30m square
[10 rods]. The majority of plots are of this size. Increasingly they are made smaller, [eg
10m by 15m, 5 rods] to enable higher plot availability and to attract smaller plot users.
Rents are usually charged per 10 rod measure.

6.2. The average rent for theusual10rodplotis£31,varying between £24 in the East of
England to £46 in London. Rents vary enormously not only in terms of location and plot
size, but in terms of facilities, mode of management and management character.

6.2.1.There is great variation between rents for plots between Statutory and Temporary
Sites and between different regions. This reasonably reflects the tendency for Statutory
Sites, given their likelihood of longer term existence, being more fully serviced with
facilities than Temporary Sites. In general terms, rents vary in relation to security of site,
and between rural and urban sites. Sites in urban areas, where sites are concentrated,
where the local council manages a number of sites within the urban area, generally tend
to have higher provision of facilities.
These variations are shown in the two following tables 9, 10..

Table 9 Rents by council type [per ten rod, regular sized plot]

County Councils £23

District Councils £27
English Unitary authorities £37
London £45
Met Districts. £26
Average rents: £31

25
6.2.2.Rents vary enormously regionally, by status and by category of location [eg city,
village]. This is likely to be in relation to the location [thus land price], soil quality,
facilities and other management practices [eg security] in relation to the sites [LGA 2001,
Survey 1996]. The density of the present evidence does not permit clarity on this, another
item taken up in recommendations. .Plot rents vary in England from £31 per 10 rod plot.
The variation of rents is between £24 in Eastern England to £45 in London [10 rods].

Table 10: Average rents across different status categories and by region

Region Statutory Private Temporary Unknown Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % within

of within of within of within of within of Region
sites Region sites Region sites Region sites Region sites
East of 194 49.1% 34 8.6% 94 23.8% 73 18.5% 395 100.0%
England
East Midlands 145 42.8% 42 12.4% 48 14.2% 104 30.7% 339 100.0%
London 159 57.0% 8 2.9% 53 19.0% 59 21.1% 279 100.0%
North East 162 57.4% 7 2.5% 88 31.2% 25 8.9% 282 100.0%
North West 175 44.8% 5 1.3% 134 34.3% 77 19.7% 391 100.0%
South East 304 54.4% 50 8.9% 92 16.5% 113 20.2% 559 100.0%
South West 172 49.6% 28 8.1% 48 13.8% 99 28.5% 347 100.0%
West 329 70.9% 17 3.7% 18 3.9% 100 21.6% 464 100.0%
Midlands
Yorkshire & 209 57.7% 9 2.5% 52 14.4% 92 25.4% 362 100.0%
Humberside
England 1849 54.1% 200 5.9% 627 18.3% 742 21.7% 3418 100.0%
Not:thistableisindicative,owingtotheincompleteresponse

26
7: Policy

7.1.1.The 2001 Report [LGA 2001] recommended to local councils the value of engaging
allotments across a wide range of policy arena. This Survey includes attention to these
key policy arenas and in particular to Open Space Strategies
asrequiredoflocalcouncilsaboveparishandtownlevelbythplanningguidancenotePPG17. In
addition, the above Report recommended much wider attention to such as Health and
Sustainable Environment Policies but these were not realised in the returns.

Note: this chapter represents the evidence from over one third of the councils [except
town and parish Councils, as these are not normally policy-making councils] but many of
the questions in this section are answered by a very small number of councils.
Response to the questions concerning policy varied especially between district councils
and the other categories. For example, Metropolitan, Unitary councils and London
Boroughs responded more highly to the key questions concerning the, within already
higher level of response to the Policy questionnaire overall. There is a similar pattern in
the response concerning the promotion of allotments. Therefore this data is expressed in
general terms, precise proportions not considered reliable.

7.2.Allotments are acknowledged as components of public open spaces. Nearly four in

ten of councils that responded have an open space strategy; a similar proportion have
one currently in development]. The response to the question concerning Open Space
Policies is very high. The variation between categories of council and their production of
audits of open space vary. Those with an Open Space Audit [including expectation of its
completion in six months] are distributed as follows. Amongst London boroughs,
nearly three quarters have made strategies. Nearly two thirds of Metropolitan Districts
and District Councils have done so, and one half of Unitary Authorities.

Table 11:Council Audit of open spaces in line with planning policy guidance note 17
(PPG17)

Region Yes No, but will do so No & no plan to do so Don't Know No. of
within 6 months within 6 months LAs

No. of % within No. of % within No. of % within No. of % within

LAs Region LAs Region LAs Region LAs Region
East of England 11 33.3 11 33.3 6 18.2 5 15.2 33

27
 East Midlands 8 30.8 10 38.5 3 11.5 5 19.2 26
London 6 46.2 1 7.7 2 15.4 4 30.8 13
North East 5 33.3 4 26.7 3 20.0 3 20.0 15
North West 9 25.7 14 40.0 3 8.6 9 25.7 35
South East 17 39.5 13 30.2 3 7.0 10 23.3 43
South West 8 34.8 7 30.4 3 13.0 5 21.7 23
West Midlands 2 12.5 3 18.8 2 12.5 9 56.3 16
Yorkshire & 3 20.0 6 40.0 2 13.3 4 26.7 15
Humberside
England 69 31.5 69 31.5 27 12.3 54 24.7 219

Table 12.: Number of Sites in relation to allotment policy document.

Number of Sites within Does your council have a policy document on allotments? Total
LA
Yes No No. of LAs % within 'yes' or 'no'

No. of LAs % within 'yes' No. of LAs % within ‘no’

1-9 sites 11 15.9 70 44.0 81 35.5

10 - 20 sites 23 33.3 48 30.2 71 31.1
21 - 171 sites 35 50.7 41 25.8 76 33.3
England 69 100.0 159 100.0 228 100.0
* ‘Council’ refers to the Local Authority within which town or parish councils is located

7.3.Different categories of local councils have as yet produced a policy document on

allotments. This comprises One half of London boroughs; one third of Metropolitan
Districts: and Unitary authorities: and one quarter of District councils.

7.4.The majority of councils that responded have one or more policies on allotment-
specific themes. Over three-quarters of local councils have policies specifying standard of
use; two thirds on target levels of provision, three quarters have demand assessments. A
high number of local councils have a strategy to promote allotments, over four in five,
and a similar proportion to resource allotment sites. Most responding councils identified
an intention to review and/or monitor policy priorities for allotments; and identified
Strategy for devolved management. Target levels of provision and resourcing are
significant policy areas. Furthermore, approximately two thirds of councils responding
have policy on target levels of provision; and strategy to resource allotments. Four in
every five local councils have policies on commitment to social inclusion and/or
commitment to physical inclusion. Two thirds identify a timetable to review and/or
monitor policy priorities for allotments. Over half have a Strategy for devolved

28
management. Most councils identify a priority of a strategy for day to day management
of allotments.

7.5. Promoting allotments is recognised as the key means to ensure the efficiency of site
use and to meet actual demand [Report of Inquiry into the future of allotments 1998].
Whilst most councils [above] have a strategy to promote allotments, the means to do so
are very varied, and the different means may have different effectiveness, that may also
vary by location, accessibility, visibility and so on. The promotion of allotments tends to
be higher in local councils where there are a greater number of sites; over one half of
councils with more than 20 sites promote them in some way; few of those with fewer
than 10 sites do so. Councils with larger numbers of sites can allocate greater resource to
their management, with efficiencies of scale.Local councils with larger numbers of sites
tend to have policies concerning aspects of allotment supply and management. Thus, over
half of councils with more than 20 sites have policies: one third with between 10 and 20
sites have, and only 16% of those with fewer than 10 sites have policies. Moreover,
councils with larger numbers of individuals on their waiting lists tend to have policies for
allotments, too. This may mean that the waiting list increases in response to policy
visibility, or policies may follow evidence of demand. The difference is slight, ie up to 25
on List, some what under one half have such policies; over 26 on list, somewhat higher..
.
7.6.Of those responding to the survey, a significant proportion identified links between
allotment policies and other agendas. Three quarters [73%] identified links between
allotment policies and other agendas and

7.7.Practice on Consultation is varied. Consultation with plotholders was identified to be

quarterly or more frequently by 86 councils [38% of those replying]; once, twice or thrice
yearly by 43 [19%]; sporadically `as and when` by 28 [12%]. Of those responding to this
question, only 28 [12%] identified no consultation.

.
8.MANAGEMENT

29
8.1.Management modes vary. The variation mirrors the evidence on policy.
Managementofsitesmaybedonebyallotmnetassociations,asdevolvedmanagement..Howeve
r,allotmnesaremanagedsitebysite,andtherecanbevariationsbetweendifferentsitesmanagedb
ythesamecouncilinreflectionoftheiparticularcircumstances,inparticularthesuitabilityofthesi
teandtheinterestamongstplotholderstomanagetheirsite.Onlysomecouncilsyetofferthisdevol
vedfacility..Nearly one half of sites are managed directly by local councils. A further one
fifth are managed by town and parish councils. Representatives of allotment holders, by
way of allotment associations, are involved in some form of devolved management that
may include either rent collection, aspects of site management and maintenance. Nearly
one half of sites have an element of devolved management. Responsibility for rent setting
is held by local councils in similar proportion to overall management responsibility. Once
again, detail is given only where the robustness of the evidence received permits, and
caveats are given accordingly. This chapter represents the evidence from over one third of
the councils [except parish Councils]; many of the questions in this section are answered
by a very small number of councils. Evidence of components of management delivery for
allotment associations is sparse, as these are not required to make their records available.
There is a considerable regional distribution of management modes, with no evident
pattern.

8.2.Responsibilityforrentcollectionbetweenthesemodeinasimilarway,mainlytheresponsibil
ityofloacalcouncils,includingtownandparishcouncils,andaquartertheresponsibilityofallotm
netassociations.

TABLE 13.Overall, and rent management responsibility

Category overall rents

management
Local councils solely 40% 46%
Allotment Association involvement or sole management 19% 22%
Shared local council-allotment association management 10% 2%

30
 Parish or town councils 20% 26%
The remaining not known/other 10% 3%
Note: town and parish councils have relatively small numbers of sites and so this data
over-estimates their presence.

8.3.1.Regional variation is given in the following tables, indicative only due to the
response variations. Higher proportions in North West, North East, Yorkshire and
Humberside are managed by Local Authorities; higher proportion in region of London
and West Midlands managed by Allotment Associations. Very low proportions of sites in
London, North East and the North West are managed by town or parish councils
Higher proportion within the North East have shared responsibility

Table14.:Management of allotment sites by region

Region Who manages the site? Total

Local Authority Allotment Shared responsibility Town or Parish Alternative shared No. of % sites
Association (LA . Allot. Assoc.) Council management or not sites within
known within Region
Region
No. of % sites No. of % sites No. of % sites No. of % sites No. of % sites
sites within sites within sites within sites within sites within
within Region within Region within Region within Region within Region
Region Region Region Region Region
East of England 125 31.6 61 15.4 37 9.4 127 32.2 45 11.4 395 100.0
East Midlands 122 36.0 66 19.5 16 4.7 112 33.0 23 6.8 339 100.0
London 106 38.0 120 43.0 20 7.2 2 .7 31 11.1 279 100.0
North East 145 51.4 33 11.7 83 29.4 6 2.1 15 5.3 282 100.0
North West 296 75.7 52 13.3 18 4.6 5 1.3 20 5.1 391 100.0
South East 227 40.6 34 6.1 29 5.2 199 35.6 70 12.5 559 100.0
South West 144 41.5 50 14.4 24 6.9 92 26.5 37 10.7 347 100.0
West Midlands 67 14.4 179 38.6 93 20.0 88 19.0 37 8.0 464 100.0
Yorkshire & Humberside 173 47.8 64 17.7 12 3.3 35 9.7 78 21.5 362 100.0
Total 1405 41.1 659 19.3 332 9.7 666 19.5 356 10.4 3418 100.0

8.3.2.Rent management responsibility is distributed similarly.

Table 15.Authorities responsible for handling rents by regions

Region Handling of rents

31
 Local authority Allotment Shared , e.g. LA & Town or parish Other Not applica
association Assoc. council
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No.
within within within within within within within within within within within w
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region R
East of 128 35.0 74 20.2 1 .3 139 38.0 19 5.2 5
England
East 116 35.6 69 21.2 7 2.1 117 35.9 12 3.7 5
Midlands
London 122 59.8 78 38.2 2 1.0 2 1.0 0 .0 0
North East 107 48.6 93 42.3 9 4.1 11 5.0 0 .0 0
North West 304 80.0 59 15.5 9 2.4 8 2.1 0 .0 0
South East 216 42.1 52 10.1 4 .8 205 40.0 35 6.8 1
South West 56 26.3 39 18.3 7 3.3 95 44.6 15 7.0 1
West 50 20.6 96 39.5 3 1.2 89 36.6 5 2.1 0
Midlands
Yorkshire & 178 61.8 55 19.1 16 5.6 38 13.2 1 .3 0
Humberside
England 1277 46.4 615 22.3 58 2.1 704 25.6 87 3.2 12

8.4.Maintenance responsibility. The responsibility for particular facility provision rests in

similar proportion to overall management and rents, with local councils at a slightly
higher
level.Onehalfofsitesaremanagedbylocalcouncils;oneintenbyallotmnetassociaitons,onequar
terbyparishandtowncouncils,andasmallnumberjointlybetweenlocalcouncilandallotmentass
oiation.

8.5.Delivering plot use efficiency is related to the handling of problems or complaints

regarding plot maintenance. The prevailing means is a warning to the plot holder, with
eviction for non compliance as appropriate, the actual procedure not revealed in the
evidence. A small proportion of councils issue warnings to alert the plotholder to the
concern and for action, but do nothing more.

8.6.waiting lists tend to remain the responsibility of local councils, as recorded by one
half of responding councils. Most of the remaining sites` lists are maintained by allotment
associations or parish and town councils. This question received a generally low
response, in total 36% of respondents. Those not replying may have no lists.
Thefollowingtablegivesanindicationofhowthesemodesdistribute,within the dataset
available.

32
Table 16.Maintenance and organisation of waiting lists

Region Yes, waiting No, waiting Waiting list is Waiting list is Waiting list Total
list is list is not organised by aggregated for both organised No.
maintained maintained site whole council by site and of
aggregated for LAs
council

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

of within of within of within of within of within
LAs Region LAs Region LAs Region LAs Region LAs Region
East of 30 88.2 3 8.8 22 64.7 0 0.0 9 26.5 34
England
East 23 85.2 4 14.8 20 74.1 1 3.7 2 7.4 27
Midlands
London 13 100.0 0 0.0 7 53.8 2 15.4 4 30.8 13
North East 15 93.8 0 0.0 14 87.5 1 6.3 1 6.3 16
North West 36 100.0 0 0.0 22 61.1 3 8.3 12 33.3 36
South East 43 93.5 3 6.5 35 76.1 2 4.3 7 15.2 46
South West 21 87.5 3 12.5 12 50.0 5 20.8 5 20.8 24
West 15 93.8 1 6.3 11 68.8 2 12.5 4 25.0 16
Midlands
Yorkshire 14 87.5 1 6.3 7 43.8 3 18.8 5 31.3 16
&
Humberside
England 210 92.1 15 6.6 150 65.8 19 8.3 49 21.5 228

8.7.Responsibility for boundary fencing or hedging is divided between the different

management categories. The largest category of responsibility for providing fencing is
the local council, three quarters of sites divided between local councils above town and
parish level, one quarter, and the greater proportion, councils of higher levels, one half.
Only one in twelve sites are the responsibility of allotment associations under devolved
management agreements. In a small number of sites councils, the responsibility for
fencing provision is shared between council and association.

Table17.Authorities responsible for site perimeter [by region]

Site perimeter (fencing / hedging) T

33
 Local authority Allotment Shared , e.g. LA Town or parish Other Not applicable No.
association & Assoc. council within
Region
Region No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
within within within within within within within within within within within within
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
East of 137 38.3 40 11.2 22 6.1 120 33.5 23 6.4 16 4.5 358
England
East 132 41.4 44 13.8 13 4.1 101 31.7 16 5.0 13 4.1 319
Midlands
London 139 68.8 58 28.7 3 1.5 2 1.0 0 .0 0 .0 202
North East 170 77.3 24 10.9 10 4.5 10 4.5 2 .9 4 1.8 220
North West 290 77.5 15 4.0 28 7.5 7 1.9 19 5.1 15 4.0 374
South East 227 45.0 28 5.5 8 1.6 192 38.0 35 6.9 15 3.0 505
South West 74 35.6 20 9.6 5 2.4 85 40.9 14 6.7 10 4.8 208
West 63 26.9 63 26.9 10 4.3 90 38.5 4 1.7 4 1.7 234
Midlands
Yorkshire 191 71.5 26 9.7 13 4.9 30 11.2 5 1.9 2 .7 267
&
Humberside
England 1423 53.0 318 11.8 112 4.2 637 23.7 118 4.4 79 2.9 2687
Q25d

8.8.Responsibility for water supply is similarly distributed between types of management

and councils.

Table 18.Authorities responsible for water supply by region

Region Water supply T

Local authority Allotment Shared , e.g. LA Town or parish Other Not applicable No.
association & Assoc. council within
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Region
within within within within within within within within within within within within
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
East of 92 26.4 34 9.7 16 4.6 118 33.8 10 2.9 79 22.6 349
England
East 119 38.8 40 13.0 2 .7 75 24.4 5 1.6 66 21.5 307
Midlands
London 131 65.2 64 31.8 0 .0 5 2.5 0 .0 1 .5 201
North East 65 30.1 51 23.6 2 .9 10 4.6 3 1.4 85 39.4 216
North West 227 61.0 13 3.5 3 .8 6 1.6 11 3.0 112 30.1 372
South East 203 40.8 27 5.4 7 1.4 187 37.6 25 5.0 49 9.8 498
South West 47 22.8 21 10.2 3 1.5 72 35.0 17 8.3 46 22.3 206
West 57 24.1 71 30.0 12 5.1 89 37.6 2 .8 6 2.5 237
Midlands
Yorkshire 151 61.6 39 15.9 15 6.1 26 10.6 1 .4 13 5.3 245
&
Humberside
England 1092 41.5 360 13.7 60 2.3 588 22.3 74 2.8 457 17.4 2631

34
8.9.TheAttraction of particular social groups can be operated through incentives.
Incentives normally apply in terms of reductions on rent, of varying levels. The retired
are the main group, incentivised in over one half of responding councils that provided
such data. Unemployed people, or new plot holders are encouraged to take plots through
incentives. There is an evident regional variation in this, and London, the north east, the
east of England and the north west provide more incentive for the retired;
Yorkshire/Humberside and the west midlands tend to provide the higher proportion of
incentives for new plot holders, and Yorkshire/Humberside relatively more for young
people. Overall, more incentives tend to be available in the north east and the south west.
However, there is also significant regional variation in the councils responding on this
item.

Table19:Councilsofferingincentivesbytype

60

57

50

40
Percentage of Local Authorities

30 32 33

28

20

10

0
No incentives offrd. Young people Unemployed
New plot holders retired

8.10.In more general terms, incentives are given to encourage individuals in any situation
to take up plots. This may take one of a variety of forms, and whilst the prioritisation of
particular groups is most significant, one half of responding councils offer either small

35
plots to encourage new plotholders or those with difficulty in using a full site [10rods],
and advice on gardening, as the following table shows..

Table20.Incentivestoplotholders.

80

75

70
Percentage of Local Authorities

60

54
50 51

40

36

30
Smllr plts for strts Info on plot prepn.
Redcd. rents to grps Rotovation of soil

8.11.Anti-Social behaviour and management action can be an important issue on sites.

Amongst local councils responding, the key factor in anti-social behaviour is vandalism,
experienced on most allotment sites in England. Theft and fly tipping of some scale are
nearly as significant. These may each be experienced separately or in combination. No
correlation is possible between the implementation of security, by fencing or by full
hedging, and the evidence of these categories, as the respective data is not time-related;
the sequencing is not recorded.

Table21.Types of antisocial problem experienced by allotment sites in England

36
 100

87
% within all responding LAs in England
80
78
72

60

40

20
21

0 6
Vandalism Fly tipping None of these probs.
Theft Abandoned vehicles Don't know

No. of respondents = 216

8.12.1.Whilst a significant minority of local councils offer wider accessibility to the

enjoyment of some of their sites, and to education use by schools, most do not. Most sites
are only open to use by plot holders and their families and, implicitly, their friends. A
relatively small proportion of sites are open to the public daily, during daylight hours.. A
small number open at restricted times, such as for special events, shows. In some areas,
particularly in cities, sites are available for use by community and voluntary groups and
nearly two thirds of councils have some facility for community use. Although the data
does not reveal this, it is often where local councils have co-ordinated management of a
number of sites where there are also active voluntary groups that such facilitation is
greater. The character of the data does not permit closer use of the evidence, nor the
evidence of whether the accessibility of sites for all uses is concentrated in a small
number of sites in certain councils or not.

8.12.2.Three quarters of the councils, although a small number responded, offer some
facility for the educational use of one or more of their sites by schools. This is

37
particularly the case in the north east, and Yorkshire and Humberside responded with
very few councils having such use.

8.13.Action for environment.

Amongst the small number of councils supplying evidence, one half of these councils
offer facilities for environmental improvement or friendliness. In most cases this occurs
in the form of the composting of waste [through provision of compost bins, some one
third of councils that responded], with less than one quarter offering community
composting schemes, community recycling or encouraging organic cultivation. Evidence
suggests significant regional patterning in these provisions, but is not robustly given in
the data received. .

Table 22.Provision of facilities to encourage environmental friendliness

No facilities Composting Community Community Organic

offered at of waste on composting recycling cultivation
present site scheme scheme

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Total

of within of within of within of within of within No.
LAs Region LAs Region LAs Region LAs Region LAs Region of
LAs
East of 11 35.5 13 41.9 11 35.5 12 38.7 10 32.3 31
England
East 15 62.5 7 29.2 1 4.2 3 12.5 4 16.7 24
Midlands
London 7 53.8 3 23.1 3 23.1 2 15.4 2 15.4 13
North East 8 53.3 5 33.3 2 13.3 1 6.7 1 6.7 15
North West 17 51.5 13 39.4 6 18.2 6 18.2 4 12.1 33
South East 22 52.4 18 42.9 4 9.5 6 14.3 5 11.9 42
South West 10 45.5 8 36.4 3 13.6 4 18.2 5 22.7 22
West 6 37.5 10 62.5 3 18.8 2 12.5 4 25.0 16
Midlands
Yorkshire 8 53.3 4 26.7 1 6.7 3 20.0 4 26.7 15
&
Humberside
England 104 49.3 81 38.4 34 16.1 39 18.5 39 18.5 211

38
8.14.Funding from outside the local councils is achieved on some sites.A significant
minority of local councils respondingonthismatter,82, had received funding support on
one or more of their sites for one or more of various works or regeneration, or particular
facilities. Over one hundred Allotment Associations had done so [111]. The latter is
significantly high, as these are relatively small in number compared to Local Authority
run sites, yet funding schemes such as the Allotments Regeneration Initiative [ARI]
prioritises community-involved associations. A further 38 sites where there is shared
responsibility LA/AA; and 14 parish/town councils also had received grants. A further 14
`unclassified` sites had also. This ARI supplies funding for sites that are engaged with
their local communities, and these tend to be where there are established Associations.
For reasons of data protection amongst allotment associations, who do not have the
requirement of public accessibility to their records, the number of sites in benefit of
funding may be under-estimated.

39
Chapters 9-10 City Farms and Community Gardens

9: Supply

9.1.City Farms
9.1.1.There are 36 City Farms on 109 hectares [300 acres], with 113 plots for individual
or shared [`community`].Individual or shared plots for cultivation are located mainly on
community gardens.
[these figures relate to the evidence collected in the survey. The Federation of City Farms
and Community Gardens represents 65 city farms, more than 1000 community gardens].

9.1.2..Nearly two thirds of city farms are on land owned by local councils, one is six on
privately owned land, and a smaller number on sites of shared ownership. Of the three
quarters of known city farms responding on this item, most identified that they held a
lease; one in seven identifying a licence. Most, 4 out of 5, city farms have a licence or
lease of over five years; one in ten have expiry within two years. A small remaining
proportion have expiry in between 2 and 5 years

9.2.CommunityGardens
9.2.1.Thereare:301 Community Gardens occupy in total 227 hectares [561 acres]; 864
plots; an average of 2.9 plots per site; average sit size 0.9hectares [2.3acres].

9.2.1.One half of community gardens are on publically owned land; one third on privately
owned land, and few on land jointly owned. Community garden sites tend to be owned as
leasehold. Nearly two thirds of responding community gardens have expiry in over five
years, the remainder divided almost equally between 2-5 and within two years..
[only 60% of gardens that responded at all identified whether they hold a lease or licence,
most identified lease.]

9.2.2.Thedataforcityfarmsandcommunitygardensarecombinedinthefollowingcompositetab
les.

40
Table 23.Ownership of the land for city farms † and community garden sites, England
and by region by region

Region Did not respond Public Private Both Public & Total
Private
No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of %
Gardens within Gardens within Gardens within Gardens within Gardens within
within Region within Region within Region within Region within Region
Region Region Region Region Region
East of 2 13 3 19 10 63 1 6 16 100
England
East 2 14 7 50 4 29 1 7 14 100
Midlands
London 8 14 36 64 8 14 4 7 56 100
North East 2 11 9 50 5 28 2 11 18 100
North West 5 15 14 41 11 32 4 12 34 100
South East 5 11 25 56 12 27 3 7 45 100
South West 6 13 22 49 9 20 8 18 45 100
West 4 14 11 38 13 45 1 3 29 100
Midlands
Yorkshire & 2 5 26 59 14 32 2 5 44 100
Humberside
Community 36 12 153 51 86 29 26 9 301 100
Gardens in
England
City Farms 7 18 23 59 6 15 3 8 39 100
in England*
301 out of 301 community gardens are accounted for in table of which 36 did not respond in this category.
* Due to the low number of city farms, figures are presented only for England
Community gardens are located mainly in urban areas. The regional data is presented, but the response level makes
particular comment inappropriate.

Table 24.City farms † and community gardens: number of garden plots, averages and
total areas
(City farms only indicated in the England figure; all regional depiction is for community
gardens)
Region Rural / No. of Total Mean No. Total Mean Total Mean No.
Urban sites hectares hectares acres No. garden garden
per site acres plots plots per
per site site
East of England Rural 6 3.4 0.6 8.3 1.4 2 0.3
Urban 10 13.1 1.5 32.3 3.6 7 0.7
Regional 16 16.4 1.1 40.6 2.7 9 0.6
total
East Midlands Rural 1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 0.0
Urban 13 14.9 1.4 36.8 3.3 75 5.8
Regional 14 14.9 1.2 36.9 1.2 75 5.4
total
London Urban 56 24.0 0.5 59.2 1.2 135 2.4
Regional 56 24.0 0.5 59.2 1.2 135 2.4
total
North East Rural 4 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.3 11 2.8
Urban 14 7.1 0.5 17.6 1.4 7 0.5

41
 Regional 18 7.6 0.4 18.7 1.1 18 1.0
total
North West Rural 2 0.5 0.3 1.4 0.7 0 0.0
Urban 32 29.4 1.2 72.6 3.0 112 3.5
Regional 34 29.9 1.2 74.0 2.8 112 3.3
total
South East Rural 13 13.8 1.3 34.1 3.1 40 3.1
Urban 32 11.5 0.5 28.5 1.2 59 1.8
Regional 45 25.3 0.7 62.6 1.8 99 2.2
total
South West Rural 13 7.8 0.9 19.4 2.2 24 1.8
Urban 32 22.6 0.9 55.8 2.2 111 3.5
Regional 45 30.4 0.9 75.1 2.2 135 3.0
total
West Midlands Rural 7 2.1 0.3 5.1 0.7 2 0.3
Urban 22 21.4 1.2 52.8 2.9 105 4.8
Regional 29 23.4 0.9 57.9 2.3 107 3.7
total
Yorkshire & Rural 3 14.9 5.0 36.7 12.2 1 0.3
Humberside Urban 41 40.3 1.4 99.6 3.6 173 4.2
Regional 44 55.2 1.8 136.3 4.4 174 4.0
total
England Rural 49 43 1.0 106 2.5 80 1.6
England Urban 252 184 0.9 455 2.3 784 3.1
Community Grand 301 227 0.9 561 2.3 864 2.9
Gardens in England Total
City Farms in Grand 36 109 3.0 270 7.5 113 2.9*
England (urban Total
only)
Denominators vary for each mean statistic according to the number of responses obtained
† Due to the low number of city farms, figures are presented only for England
*Denominator for number of garden plots per city farm site = 39).

42
10: Site characteristics,management and facilities

10.1.1.City Gardens and City Farms are very well supplied for key facilities. This
provision relates to their strong community-oriented and open access approach. Almost
all sites have perimeter fencing, nine out of ten. Over one half have a community
building; Nearly two thirds have toilets; One in six have waste skip provision. Over
three-quarters have water supply.

10.1.2.Disability-oriented facilities are also significantly available on these sites:

Over one half have facility for those with disability, three quarters have wheelchair
access, nearly one half have disability access toilets, one half accessibility slope,
one half raised beds for cultivation, one third sensory garden. One in twenty have braille
available.

10.1.3.Facilities for environmental friendliness are also highly represented:

Facilities provided to encourage environmental friendliness are evident in two thirds of
sites. Compositing of waste is done on two thirds of sites; one half of sites deploy organic
cultivation. One in six sites have community composting or community recycling
schemes.

10.1.4.Management on community gardens and city farms is defined in relation to

ownership, and is individually arranged for each site. No sites identified that the site had
moved within the last three years.

10.1.5..Taking community gardens and city farms together, fewer than one quarter of
sites identify significant anti-social behaviour, as more than two
occasions.Londonidntifiesthehighestproportionofsitesexperiencingsignificantproblemsoft
hiskind. The severe incidents are mainly in terms of vandalism and theft [both one third]
and on a smaller number of sites, 28, fly tipping just over half, and nearly two thirds [28

43
sites identified abandoned vehicles]. . More specifically, these aggregated data may be
distinguished as follows, in the two separate but related categories.

Disaggregating community gardens and city farms demonstrates differences in several

respects.

10.2.CITY FARMS

10.2.1.Most city farms are well supplied with facilities.Almost all city farms have
perimeter fencing, This is important in view of their general public accessibility and
significant levels of livestock, that need high levels of security. Moreover, and for reasons
of significant public use, most sites have toilets and a community building. \only one
third, however, have a skip for the collection of onsite rubbish. They are well furbished
with water Almost all city farms have perimeter fencing, not least because most keep
livestock. Most sites have toilets and a community building. One third of sites have a skip
for the collection of onsite rubbish. Almost all sites are furnished with water supply.

10.2.2. Facilities for individuals with disability are well served on city farms.
More than three-quarters of city farms have wheelchair access. Three-quarters have
toilets with disability access and the same proportion slope accessibility. Two thirds have
raised bed facilities; one quarter sensory gardens and all have some facility of people
with disabilities.

10.2.3.Access to the public is important on these sites. Whilst City Farms prioritise public
access and participation, the care of animals and security requirements requires opening
to be time limited. Two thirds of city farms sites are open to the public, at restricted
times, owing to the need for security for livestock.. Nearly one half of farms are open in
all daylight hours.

10.2.4.Community and educational uses are also important to the role of city farms. All
city farms have entertainment and special events, crucial to their purpose. Approximately

44
 one third have open days and a similar proportion or play activities for young children
and to engage young people at risk of exclusion. For reasons of public use, most city
farms have toilets and a community building.

10,2,5, There is a preponderance of modest problems with anti-social behaviour on city

farm sites, listed as one half of the total responding. One third list these as severe.
10.2.6. Environmentally oriented facilities and activities are encouraged in general terms
for city farm sites. Five in six city farms have one or more types of environmentally
friendly facilities and practices. Almost all have an onsite composting facility. One half
promotes organic cultivation One quarter has community composting, a similar
proportion community recycling.

10.2.7.The keeping of livestock on city farms is a central part of their role in public
access and facilities for children. Nearly two thirds reported the keeping livestock of
some kind. Of different animals, the majority of city have the keeping of pigs. Most City
Farms also have the keeping of poultry, rabbits, sheep, goats. One half of these farms
keep horses. Bees or donkeys are each respectively kept on one quarter of farms.

Table 25.General facilities available on city farm† and community garden sites
by region
Region Fencing around the Community Toilets Skip provided for Water supply Other Tota
perimeter building on-site rubbish

No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of

gardens within gardens within gardens within gardens within gardens within gardens within gardens
in Region in Region in Region in Region in Region in Region in
region region region region region region region
East of England 12 75 9 56 10 63 3 19 11 69 6 38 16
East Midlands 11 79 7 50 8 57 0 0 8 57 8 57 14
London 46 84 31 56 30 55 5 9 45 82 22 40 55
North East 16 94 11 65 10 59 2 12 10 59 7 41 17
North West 29 85 18 53 14 41 4 12 18 53 10 29 34
South East 32 74 17 40 21 49 6 14 31 72 23 53 43
South West 37 86 18 42 20 47 6 14 30 70 22 51 43
West Midlands 26 93 21 75 22 79 3 11 22 79 11 39 28
Yorkshire & Humberside 30 73 16 39 16 39 7 17 25 61 17 41 41
Community Gardens in England 239 82 148 51 151 52 36 12 200 69 126 43 291
City Farms in England 35 90 34 87 36 92 14 36 36 92 25 64 39
10 out of 301 community gardens did not respond. All 39 city farms responded.
† Due to the low number of city farms, figures are presented only for England

45
10.3.COMMUNITY GARDENS

10.3.1.In terms of core facilities, most community gardens have perimeter fencing [in
four out of five sites];one half have toilets, one half a community building [not necessary
the same sites].Two thirds have a water supply.

10.3.2.Facilities for those with disability are recommended feature on many community
garden sites. Two thirds of sites have wheelchair access; one third have toilets with access
for those with disability. Nearly one half have slope access, nearly one half raised beds.
Few sites have no special facilities to assist those with disability.

Table26.Facilities for individuals with disability on community gardens or city farms

70

60 63

50

45
% of gardens / farms in England

40

30 31 Raised beds
28
Braille / large
24 24
20
print signage

Sensory garden
10
11
Other disabled
4
0 facilities
Community Gardens City Farms

Number of respondents for community gardens = 270: Number of respondents for city farms = 38

10.3.3.Access to the public is generally a significant feature of community gardens,

especially in relation to their immediate community. Over one half of community garden

46
sites are open to the public during daylight hours. A slightly smaller proportion is open
only at restricted hours.

10.3.4.Community and educational uses are a key purpose of community gardens

wherever possible, although this is limited by security. One half of community garden
sites have educational visits by schools or other groups and for open days – not
necessarily the same sites. Somewhat fewer have entertainments or special events; one
third supply opportunities for play for young children; one fifth have projects to engage
young people at risk of exclusion. Few sites make use of none of these.

Table 27.Activities and events taking place on city farms and community gardens

100
100

80
79

71

60 63
% of gardens / farms in England

61
No activities
53
49
Educational visits
40 44
Play activities
34
Entertainment
20
20 Open days

12 Engage young people

0 at risk of exclusion
Community Gardens City Farms

Number of community gardens responding: 293

Number of city farms responding: 38

10.3.5.Environmentally oriented facilities and activities are significant features on

community garden sites. Two thirds of community gardens offer facilities of some sort;
two thirds have on site composting and one half explicitly encourage organic cultivation.

47
One in eight organises community composting and one in six has a community recycling
schemes.

10.3.6.The presence of livestock on community gardens is relatively small compared with

city farms. Community gardens have an emphasis on ground cultivation. Only small
numbers of the total community gardens keep livestock, at less than one in twenty sites.
Fewer than one in twenty of sites include livestock in any category, usually pigs or
poultry.

10.3.7.One third of community gardens identify no or marginal problems with anti-social

behaviour. One half identify a modest level, one third, severe.

Table 28.Antisocial behaviour on community gardens

Extent of Antisocial Behaviour

on Community Gardens
(England)

Don't know
1%

Severe
Non existent
21%
30%

Moderate
49%

Number of community gardens: 301

There are regional variations in activities and events taking place on community gardens.
Although response does not provide for a robust commentary, the table below is included
as indicative. For example, London, Yorkshire and Humberside demonstrate the highest

48
 level of activity for educational use of community garden sites. London is highest in
terms of play activities for young children. Young people at risk are most highly served in
Yorkshire and Humberside

Table 29.Activities and Events taking place on city farm† and community garden sites by
Region

Region No activities Educational Play activities Entertainment Open days Programmes to Other Activity Total
or events visits by school for young / special events engage young / event
or other groups children people at risk
of exclusion
No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of %
gardens gardens gardens gardens gardens gardens gardens gardens
within within within within within within within within
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
East of England 4 27 7 47 3 20 7 47 6 40 4 27 8 53 15 100
East Midlands 2 15 8 62 7 54 8 62 7 54 4 31 8 62 13 100
London 3 5 30 54 22 39 27 48 28 50 7 13 34 61 56 100
North East 3 17 10 56 9 50 7 39 8 44 6 33 10 56 18 100
North West 4 12 15 44 12 35 14 41 12 35 9 26 15 44 34 100
South East 6 14 18 41 15 34 15 34 23 52 7 16 23 52 44 100
South West 8 19 22 51 13 30 18 42 21 49 5 12 22 51 43 100
West Midlands 1 4 19 68 9 32 12 43 16 57 5 18 15 54 28 100
Yorkshire & Humberside 3 7 26 62 11 26 22 52 23 55 12 29 21 50 42 100
Community Gardens in England 34 12 155 53 101 34 130 44 144 49 59 20 156 53 293 100
City Farms in England 0 0 38 100 24 63 30 79 27 71 23 61 17 45 38 100
8 out of 301 community gardens and 1 out of 39 city farms did not respond. 38 out of 39 city farms responded
† Due to the low number of city farms, figures are presented only for England

Chapter11.Discussion and conclusions

11.1.ALLOTMENTS

49
11.1.1.The provision of allotments has decreased in the last decade, but at a rate less steep
than the previous decade.

11.1.2.The numbers of people registered on waiting lists, where a list is maintained and
councils responded, has increased over the last decade, and the numbers of vacant plots
declined in aggregate.

11.1.3.The distribution of allotment sites between statutory and temporary categories is

unclear, owing to lack of certainty amongst the local councils responding. However the
proportion of each may be interpreted as remaining largely the same as a decade ago.

11.1.4.Evidence suggests a continued disposal of sites, accompanied by an increase in

vacant plots; more efficient use of remaining plots, and reduction in overall availability to
the population. Vacant plots may be associated with a lack of local public awareness of
their availability, that depends on modes and efficiency of site and plot promotion. These
aggregate observations may belie local correlations between these factors.

11.1.5.A significant minority of local councils are engaging allotments in their open
space, environmental quality, community opportunity and other related policy areas.
However, this is very uneven. Promotion of sites is also very uneven, and there is a
significant surviving use of merely onsite notices that may lack popular visibility.

11.1.6.Allotment rents vary significantly. This is likely to be in relation to the location

[thus land price], soil quality, facilities and other management practices in relation to the
sites [LGA 2001, Survey 1996]. The density of the present evidence does not permit
clarity on this, but the data in this survey is not able to correlate rents and site
characteristics.

50
11.1.7.Allotment sizes demonstrate some variability from the larger, regular 10 rod plot.
There may be further scope for diversifying allotments size in order to increase their
accessibility to the wider public.

11.1.8.Livestock is now kept on a limited number of allotments

11.1.9.Evidence of the character of allotment demand, given the acknowledged great

shifts that have been made since the 80s, albeit unevenly, suggest opportunity for further
use of allotments to deliver the range of policies and actions identified in the 2001 report.

11.1.10.The regional distribution of allotments in terms of site characteristics and quality,

management, public access, handling of supply and demand suggests significant
variability. This survey, however, does not provide the data to examine the dynamics of
allotment policy and management in each region.

11.1.11.Diversity of allotments, in number, size and availability between regions is

historic. An investigation would valuably identify regionally distinctive opportunities
concerning site characteristics.

11.1.12. Anti-social behaviour remains significant on most allotment sites.

11.1.13.Evidence on private sites is very sparse, yet the overall evidence suggests that
there is a similar number of privately owned sites as a decade ago.

11.1.14.There is only a partial response from local councils to the production of an audit
of allotments sites at time of survey. however, most remaining councils indicate an
intention to make this audit within six months of the survey, that should at time of writing
be completed.

51
11.1.15.A small number of local councils demonstrate one or other means of bringing
allotments to connect with the appropriate range of policy areas. More work is needed to
ensure that further opportunities for allotments are realised.

11.1.16.A significant proportion of local councils indicate some form of promotion of

their sites and plots, especially when these plots are vacant. This is applied very unevenly,
and this suggests the opportunity to encourage local councils to ensure greater efficiency
of site use through increased promotional activities, and to evaluate the most appropriate
promotional means in different localities.

11.1.17.There is some evidence of the devolution of allotment management.

However this tends still to be at a small level, and offers more opportunity to engage
plotholders in the management of their site, releasing energies, offering empowerment.

11.1.18. Social inclusion and physical inclusion are addressed by relatively small
proportion of councils and on their sites.

11.1.19.The encouragement of environmentally friendly practice onsite is very uneven.

.
11.1.20.The complexity of the two questionnaires, and the requirement to include
locational data, may be reasons for the incompleteness of this response.

11.2.CITY FARMS AND COMMUNITY GARDENS

11.2.1.The dataset provides new collated evidence for city farms and community gardens.
These matters will be addressed in particular by the Federation to examine its
opportunities for making further success.

11.2.2.However, there is evidence from the practice, management, community

engagement that are significant on such sites that there is much that may be transferable
to allotment policy and management.

52
12.Recommendations

12.1.The level and unevenness in response suggest strongly that a procedure for regular
keeping of data by local councils be required. It is also valuable to extend this
requirement to the local council documentation of evidence on private sites.

12.2. All data on allots required with the annual returns of open spaces. Allotments are
public open spaces, albeit with a distinctive relative individual user temporality. Given
their broader value and complexity, allotments may need to be collected in more depth….

12.3.Key aspects of data are considered in terms of the stratification of council response.
In, for example, the evidence on policy development by local councils, there is a
significant difference in policy development between district and metropolitan councils.
Moreover, the response rate in particular sections of the questionnaires, on policy and on
sites, whilst uneven in all categories, is significantly different between these categories of
councils.

12.4.Many sites are owned, and managed, by town and parish councils. Others are owned
and managed by their respective district councils. It may be that considerable numbers,
perhaps thousands of sites, are in the former category. The 1996 survey was supported by
a regional network of informants, at great length and time. This was not undertaken for
the present survey. An full audit is advised on these potential sites, at least in a selective
way to assess their present situation, condition, use, and trends.

12.5.An analysis of the dynamics and modus op of devolved management and its relative
efficiency and effectiveness vis a vis non-devolved management.
In view of the importance of allotment sites and the facilities they offer, it is important to
investigate more closely the connections and dynamics of allotment sites in England.

53
12.6.An examination of correlation between rents and faciltiies, management types is
needed to evaluate performance and opportunity.

12.7.A selective review of policy and services would reveal correlations between
performance and efficiency, with potential for improvement.

12.8.As there is evidence that suggests an increasing mismatch between global figures of
waiting lists and vacant plots, and that the evidence collected does not permit exact
comparison in individual councils or sites, a focused, selective, local analysis is
recommended to secure an informed picture of the local dynamics of allotments council
performance, supply and demand.

12.9.Ingeneral,this survey did not provide for an assessment of connections between

evidence in many important cases. For example, the consequences of building policy for
allotments and the effects of those policies, allotment promotion and types thereof and
their deliver of demand, of reducing site vacancy; management arrangements and the
delivery of greater site effectiveness, efficiency of use, delivery to those with disability. It
is therefore recommended that carefully sampled investigations are required to achieve
these policy goals.

12.10.In view of the importance of popular knowledge concerning the availability of

existing allotments, further work is needed to evaluate the performance of promotion.

12.11.Asrents vary enormously regionally, by status and by category of location [eg city,
village], the reasons need to be analysed, and appropriate resposes to achieve efficiency
and availability addressed. This may include attention to the development of more
smaller sites..

12.12.Allotments are frequently an aspect of local government that is not highly

positioned within the organisation and thus often lacking in investment of more

54
appropriate staff and appropriate time. This is likely to be the explanation of the variation
in response to particular questions, as well as to the questionnaires a whole. It is therefore
recommend that action be taken to position the work that local councils do appropriately
according to their recognition as significant components of joined-up government policy
delivery.

12.13.Dissemination of this report, opportunity to engage local councils in particular in

the building of effectiveness and efficiency, and relevance to a range of policy issues that
allotments have

Sources used in Report

CFCG website: www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/askncvo/index.asp?id=374&fID=71

Crouch D. and Ward C. [2003] The Allotment: its landscape and culture Five Leaves
[first ed. Faber and Faber 1988]

House of Commons [1998] Report of Enquiry into the Future of Allotments Cmnd:

LGA [Local Government Association] [2001] Growing in Community: Best Practice

LGA-DETR-GLA-Shell Better Britain Campaign 2001

DETR/Anglia [Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions] [1997] Survey of

Allotments in England.

PPG17PolicyandPlanningGuidanceNote.Thisdocument
identifiestherequirementforalllocalcouncilstoproducean
AuditofOpenSpacesintirjurisdiction.

Appendix 1: Research Method

Questionnaire design
Allotments
At the outset, a single questionnaire was designed in order to obtain information about
allotment policy and to simultaneously capture specific details pertaining to allotment

55
sites. The latter included data on the basic infrastructure of each site (e.g. size, number of
plots, presence of fencing etc) and information to enable the site to be accurately spatially
located by a grid reference. However, initial pilot work indicated that allotment officers
were likely to be overwhelmed by the work required and difficulties in deriving a grid
reference that would potentially be detrimental to obtaining a good response. It was,
therefore, decided that policy issues should the subject of an allotment ‘policy
‘questionnaire and that all of the allotment site-specific information should be included
within a separate allotment ‘site’ questionnaire. A copy of the allotment policy and site
questionnaires is shown in Appendix Z.

Distribution of Policy Questionnaires

The period of fieldwork ran from March 2004 until mid June 2005 – approximately 16
months. At the outset, all 388 English local authorities were contacted in order to identify
an officer responsible for allotments. Allotment officers were then sent an e mail and
covering letter (as an attachment) requesting completion of an allotment ‘policy’
questionnaire. They were offered the option of receiving a paper copy of the
questionnaire. Electronic versions were distributed via email hyperlink using Mercator
‘Snap’ survey software, version 7 which enabled recipients to open questionnaires on-line
and, by pressing a ‘submit’ button, returning it via e mail to the University of Derby.
Paper copies of policy questionnaires were mailed (including a Freepost reply envelope)
to those who were unable to utilise the electronic version.

A total of 358 district or borough councils (92%) responded either by returning a

questionnaire or stating that they were not responsible for managing allotments. Non-
responders were chased as an on-going process throughout the whole period of data
collection and, in the later stages of the field work, final reminder letters were sent to all
non responding local authorities. This process led to the receipt of 282 responses (73%
of the total 388) which, after removing 41 duplicates, resulted in 241 valid entries. The
duplicate entries occurred for a variety of reasons. The circulation of the questionnaire
by e mail meant that forms were distributed to multiple sources beyond the control of the
researchers. Additionally, paper questionnaires were sometimes photocopied and
circulated within council departments or forwarded to town or parish councils where it
was thought by allotment officers that policy decisions were being made. In some,
though most likely rare, instances, district and borough councils had more than one
policy resulting from responsibilities being allocated at town or parish council level
within a given district or borough council.

Distribution of Allotment Site Questionnaires

At the outset, allotment site questionnaires were sent via email hyperlink plus an attached
covering letter to all respondents of the policy questionnaire. This was followed by a
mailing of a paper questionnaire to town and parish councils that had originally been
identified by local authorities as being responsible for allotment sites together with town
and parish councils that were identified via response from the policy questionnaire. This
process led to the mailing of allotment site questionnaires to approximately 2,000 town or
parish councils resulting in approximately 1,400 stating that there were no allotments
within their area and 600 valid returns.

56
The electronic questionnaire was designed so that it could be opened, completed and
submitted ‘on-line’ for each allotment site. Allotment officers who did not return an
electronic questionnaire within approximately two weeks were contacted to find out if
they would prefer paper copies of the site questionnaire. The process of first sending a
policy questionnaire and following up with a site questionnaire was continued during the
whole period of data collection and is described in Figure X. In a minority of instances,
such as when allotment officers were responsible for a large number of allotment sites
and were unable to respond within four weeks, a shortened version of the questionnaire
was posted as a paper or electronic spreadsheet according to preference.

It became apparent, in early 2005, that there had been a low return of responses from
private allotment sites. Therefore, in order to help improve response from private sites,
arrangements were made with the Allotment Regeneration Initiative (ARI) to mail paper
copies of the allotment site questionnaire to approximately 600 of their members that
were thought to be managing private sites. Arrangements were made to send additional
questionnaires to those with more than one site. This process led to the receipt of 3418
allotment site questionnaires.

57
City Farms and Community Gardens
An allotment site questionnaire was designed for city farms and community gardens on a
similar basis as for the allotment site questionnaire (see Appendix Z).

The Confederation of City Farms and Gardens (CFCG) assumed responsibility for
mailing separately designed questionnaires to approximately 1,000 of their members of
which about 95% were responsible for community gardens and the remainder for city
farms. The CFCG also made arrangements to contact its English members of the
Allotment Regeneration Initiative with a view to securing responses from allotment sites,
especially private sites that could not be identified by the process of contacting local
authorities, as described above. This process led to the receipt of 340 questionnaires.

Calculation of allotment areas and rental values

The allotment site questionnaire made provision for respondents to quote the area of
allotment sites as acres, hectares, square yards or square metres. In many instances,
respondents ignored the options provided and quoted areas in imperial measures such as
rods, poles or perches. A similar problem was encountered with respect to consistently
reporting annual rental income. It should be noted that, whilst one square rod / pole /
perch is more accurately equivalent to 30.25 square yards or 25.292 square metres, it was
thought more appropriate to use conversion factors of one rod to 30 square yards and to
25 square metres. These rounded conversion factors are consistent with those used for
the 1996 allotment survey and with the approximations that respondents were able to
offer when answering the questionnaire. The conversion factors used in this report to
calculate standardised allotment areas and rental values are shown in Table Z below.

Table 1.Conversion factors used in the estimation of allotment areas and rental
values

Area specified by Area recorded in data-set

respondent
One acre 4,047 square metres
( = 160 square rods)
One hectare 10,000 square metres
(= 395 square rods or 2.47 acres)
One lug 40 square metres
(old term used in Norfolk)
One square perch, square 25 square metres
pole or square rod (= 30 square yards)
(usually referred to as
‘perches’, ‘poles’ or
‘rods’)
Small plot 125 square metres
(5 square rods) (= 150 square yards)
Large plot 250 square metres
(10 square rods) (= 300 square yards)

58
Figure 2.Method of distribution of Allotment Policy and Site Questionnaires

Policy questionnaires

sent to

Allotment Officers
in LAs

Upon receipt of policy

questionnaire: Researchers chased
non-responders to policy
site questionnaires sent to and site questionnaire by
Allotment Associations, LAs & Town e mail and telephone
/ Parish Councils

ODPM sent
Ministerial letter
Identification of to
Town / Parish non-responders
Councils from of policy
policy questionnaire
Questionnaire and
1996 dataset

241 policy questionnaires ODPM sent final

& reminder letter to
non-responders of
3418 site questionnaires policy
available for analysis questionnaire

59
Potential to compare the Allotment Survey carried out in 1997 with the present 2005
survey

1997 survey
The total number of allotment sites identified in England in 1997 was 7,796 giving rise to
almost 300,000 plots. Since conducting this survey, there have been 331 disposals of
statutory sites recorded at the ODPM which leads us to deduce that there should now be
7,465 allotment sites in England. This number does not, however, take into account of the
disposal of temporary sites for which recording is not mandatory. If an additional 6% of
disposals is allowed for, the number of remaining sites today would be expected to be in
the order of 7,000. On this basis, an estimated ‘true’ number of allotment sites and plots
and an estimated true number on the waiting list has been calculated and shown within
the summary of key components of allotments shown in Table 1. The three shaded
columns in Table 1 that show the estimated totals are projected figures that have been
computed by multiplying each regional and England total obtained from the allotment
policy questionnaire by a factor of 7,000 (the extrapolated estimate) divided by actual
number of sites (4,937) estimated by allotment offers and recorded on the questionnaires
= 1.42.

2004/5 Allotment Policy Survey

The present survey derives information about the number of allotment sites and plots
from a policy and a site questionnaire. The policy questionnaire requested respondents to
state the number of allotment sites and plots for which their council is responsible,
including sites under devolved management. The 4,927 sites (190,431 plots), therefore,
represents a best estimate of the total number of allotment sites in England. However, this
is likely to underestimate the true figure because not all councils responded and some
may have assumed that allotments managed by town and parish councils within their
district did not come within their jurisdiction.

Assuming that the true number of allotments is around 7,000, council allotment officers
are aware of approximately two-thirds of these and the remainder, it seems, reside within
the province of private and charitable allotment associations. There are some
explanations as to why allotment officers where not willing or able to identify a
significant minority of allotment sites within their districts. Allotment associations are
run independently and it seems that their existence is known to relatively few individuals.
There is a paucity of information about them which is often not disseminated beyond the
local environs of the communities they serve. There also seems to be widespread concern
about the legal implications of the Data Protection Act should the personal details of
contacts be released without prior permission to outsiders such as researchers.

2004/5 Allotment Site Survey

Whilst the 2004/5 allotment policy questionnaire identified 4,927 allotment sites known
to council allotment officers, detailed information was obtained from the site
questionnaire for only 3,418 (69%) of these sites. As previously mentioned, the shortfall
was likely to be due to a lack of response from a small minority of councils and due to
the inability of the researchers to make contact with independent charitable and private

60
allotment associations. Lack of response was also likely to be due to the inability of
those responsible for allotments to provide the information requested. The questionnaire
stated that certain information, such as financial details and grid reference, were optional,
but some respondents may still have been deterred by the length of the questionnaire.

Limitation of comparisons between 1997 and 2004/5

An explanation has already been provided (see above) for the substantial differences
between the raw numbers for allotment sites and plots derived in 1997 compared with the
present survey. This, regrettably, means that it would be extremely unwise to directly
compare the raw numbers of sites and plots obtained from the current survey with the
figures presented in the 1997 report.

The present survey has captured a sample of the total number of allotment sites which, if
our estimate of the true total of around 7,000 sites is correct, means that there is detailed
information for about 49% of all allotment sites in England. The extent to which the sites
about which information has been obtained represent the total population cannot be
automatically assumed but there is no reason to suppose that this is not the case. On the
contrary, the average number of plots per site of 43 derived from the site questionnaire in
2004/5 compares well with 38 plots per site obtained from the 1997 survey. This
suggests that, in terms of the size of each site, the sample in 2004/5 is similar to the total
population of sites recorded in 1997.

The immediate question that arises from the above discussion is whether or not any
comparisons at all can be made between the two sets of data. First, it is worth pointing
out that the present survey provides rich data on allotment policy that was not available in
the 1997 survey. Second, the site questionnaire furnishes greater detail about the physical
infrastructure, location and usage of allotment sites than may be found in the 1997 report.
Thirdly, there are valid comparisons that may be made between the two periods on the
assumption that the 2004/5 is representative of the total population of allotment sites. In
particular, from the policy questionnaire, the number of plots per 1,000 household, plots
per 1000 population and percentage vacant plots out of total plots may all be compared
with the headline statistics for England and per region in 1997. From the current
allotment site questionnaire, we may also be confident in making comparisons with
respect to average statistics such as: mean no. of plots per site, rods (and other areas) per
site and average rental values.

One final caveat should be borne in mind in relation to comparing allotment statistics by
county and unitary authority in 2004/ 5 compared with 1997. The counties and
administrative areas presented in 2004 are those derived by PLUS 1, Planning and Land
Use Statistics Division, ODPM (2005). These areas take account of a number of
boundary changes that mainly came into effect between 1996 and 1998 when the English
Unitary Authorities were formed. Care should, therefore, be exercised when making any
comparisons between allotment statistics in 2004/5 at county / unitary authority level.

61
Appendix 2.Questionnaires

Copy of Allotment Policy Questionnaire

(click on the hyperlink text below to open a pdf using Adobe software)

policypdf.pdf

Copy of Allotment Site Questionnaire

(click on hyperlink text below to open a pdf using Adobe software)

site 25 june.pdf

Copy of City Farms and Gardens Questionnaire

(click on hyperlink text below to open a pdf using Adobe software)

CFCG 25 June.pdf

The Questionnaires are supplied also in separate files.

62
Appendix 3: Summary glossary
Allotment plots are allocated by local council [or private owners] to individuals, or
families, usually identified with one name. Normally, each name on a waiting list [see
below] is allocated one plot.
Allotment plots vary in size, but are mainly of `10 rods` in size. This traditional measure
is normally used for allotment, and indicates a plot 10yards by 30yards in size. In recent
decades, an increasing diversity of allotment plot size has become familiar, but not
prevalent, as local councils have varied sizes available to respond to demand for smaller
plots, and to increase plot available in response to local demand and supply adjustments.
Statutory sites are allotment sites given some protection by legislation as they are
provided as allotment sites. Permission to change these sites, or part thereof, from
allotment use is required through notification of intent to do so to the Secretary of State
ODPM.
Temporary sites are lands that have been used as allotments for a period of time, that may
be for over a century, and yet the land has never been allocated for such use on a
`permanent` basis, as in the case of Statutory Sites.
Disposals: from time to time allotments may be used for development for other uses, ie
become disposed of. Statutory sites are protected and therefore local council seeking to
dispose of such sites are required to notify the Secretary of State, ODPM, to secure
permission to do so. Such requests and their decisions are recorded by ODPM.
Waiting lists are kept by many councils, though not a statutory requirement, as a ongoing
record of allotment demand, from which plots are allocated according to position on the
list.
Vacant plots are allotment plots that, at time of this survey, were not rented. Plots may be
vacant temporarily on account of illness, and others may for other reasons cease use of
their plot. In some cases individuals may fail to renew their rent at the appropriate time,
and so a plot may be identified as vacant.
City Farms and Community Gardens
Lease and licence. These are categories of holding of sites by city farms and community
gardens.

Appendix 4. Key components of allotments

County / Unitary Authorities
County / Unitary Authority No. No. No. of No. of No. on Population Households
Bath and North East of of plots vacant waiting
Somerset to Milton Keynes LAs sites plots list

Bath and North East 1 19 950 30 240 169040 71115

Somerset
Bedfordshire 1 6 764 174 NR 147911 59597
Blackburn with Darwen 1 10 401 NR NR 137470 53407
Blackpool 1 8 417 36 11 142283 63940
Bournemouth 1 7 368 66 45 163444 72212
Bristol, City of 1 108 4500 NR 300 380615 162090
Buckinghamshire 2 14 777 80 32 327853 128030

63
Cambridgeshire 5 92 365 66 222 552658 222873
Cheshire 4 64 1135 230 104 440692 184742
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 3 24 479 0 101 275944 118552

Cumbria 5 108 2216 62 267 437830 187884

Darlington 1 13 525 525 NR 97838 42309
Derby 1 18 NR NR NR 221708 92405
Derbyshire 7 68 1797 115 92 637645 268176
Devon 3 70 2133 100 9 229693 95692
Dorset 3 17 1052 65 89 152929 66572
Durham 6 152 3791 185 138 399477 168648
East Riding of Yorkshire 1 7 99 20 93 314113 131084
East Sussex 3 41 1099 206 53 310480 133992
Essex 5 63 2491 512 47 624562 256945
Gloucestershire 6 35 1632 26 3 730218 304380
Greater London 23 602 33188 4929 1951 5266164 2116092
Greater Manchester 10 271 9003 692 457 2482328 1040231
Halton 1 15 286 0 46 118208 47948
Hampshire 9 100 4286 250 522 987267 398251
Hartlepool 1 16 1057 79 78 88611 37385
Hertfordshire 10 137 5736 1063 126 1033977 420650
Isle of Wight 1 25 700 15 87 132731 57519
Kent 7 100 3592 400 108 914541 371132
Kingston upon Hull, City of 1 25 1800 600 45 243589 104288

Lancashire 10 98 2875 37 204 999518 413682

Leicester 1 46 3590 940 NR 279921 111148
Leicestershire 7 40 1402 212 68 553889 231780
Lincolnshire 3 30 1745 59 0 220860 93504
Luton 1 15 1107 300 2 184371 70755
Merseyside 3 75 3672 722 181 902225 381763
Middlesbrough 1 6 800 200 30 134855 55164
Milton Keynes 1 16 948 179 48 207057 83359

Norfolk 2 32 1500 38 47 256895 112922

North East Lincolnshire 1 9 1986 793 NR 157979 66054
North Lincolnshire 1 5 473 155 1 152849 64014
North Yorkshire 2 15 796 35 36 257579 109803
Northamptonshire 5 56 4906 2069 5 481288 199075
Northumberland 5 70 2991 22 130 276161 117245
Nottingham 1 54 3200 NR NR 266988 116112
Nottinghamshire 5 92 3973 672 72 536638 225892
Oxfordshire 2 9 503 68 15 247412 98984
Peterborough 1 24 NR NR 120 156061 65380
Plymouth 1 32 1000 32 100 240720 102540
Poole 1 8 390 11 200 138288 59047
Portsmouth 1 9 1800 229 259 186701 78719

64
 Reading 1 23 1178 278 50 143096 57877
Shropshire 4 23 495 42 5 226065 94152
Slough 1 13 860 317 NR 119067 44987
Somerset 1 12 93 0 20 103869 42881
South Yorkshire 2 164 5214 989 559 731297 309787
Southampton 1 23 1800 150 30 217445 91217
Southend-on-Sea 1 3 350 120 12 160257 70978
Staffordshire 3 35 767 62 86 292511 117874
Stoke-on-Trent 1 76 3420 798 NR 240636 103196
Suffolk 4 87 2706 764 99 996157 420008
Surrey 8 83 4615 952 59 781968 319842
Swindon 1 29 1319 289 23 180051 75154
Telford and Wreckin 1 6 318 33 15 158325 63768
The City of Brighton and 1 37 2100 120 500 247817 114479
Hove
Thurrock 1 24 996 1 NR 143128 58485
Torbay 1 18 NR 12 158 129706 57420
Tyne and Wear 5 323 9420 358 1188 1075938 462824
Warrington 1 10 236 8 74 191080 78030
Warwickshire 2 32 400 50 5 206585 85166
West Midlands 5 242 11338 581 25 2018162 813469
West Sussex 4 210 2201 223 94 379027 213857
West Yorkshire 5 378 10439 1838 403 2079211 854040
Wiltshire 3 25 1000 62 130 307601 126380
Windsor and Maidenhead 1 16 875 47 60 133626 54261
Worcestershire 3 50 1837 76 21 259997 105880
York 1 19 983 162 50 181094 76920
NR = Nil Return

65