Bristol's allotment strategy
I've been reading a post on Jane Perrone's blog about the loss of allotment sites in Manchester. I haven't delved into the details behind the story, but the topic started me thinking about Bristol's allotment strategy. The latest version, to cover the period 2007-2012, is currently in consultation. Superficially, Bristol's approach seems to have some similarities to Manchester's story.
The current strategy (2001-2006) and the new proposals both appear to share the core theme of divesting poorly used or derelict sites, ploughing some of the proceeds into improvements for popular sites. The council's record on this is pretty good. During the period 1999-2005 the council sold off 7 sites (or parts thereof), netting a little under £6.5M, 38% of which was returned to investment in allotments. The improvements are plain to see. For example, the site our plot is on (Ashley Down) has new, high security, palisade fencing, new haulingways and there's talk of a complete overhaul of the water supply.
This investment seems to have paid off. Looking at the 2003 to 2005 period, there appear to be just over 800 new long term (i.e. persevering for the two years measured) tenants. Combining the increased number of tenancies with the reduced number of plots, occupancy rates are now up twenty percentage points to 73%, when compared to 2000. Again, anecdotally, the Ashley Down site has been transformed over three year period we've been there from being half filled with brambles to fully cultivated with a waiting list.
The picture above concentrates on the allotment strategy from a "return on investment" perspective. I'm very sympathetic to this. We live, after all, in a society driven by financial targets. Recent news stories have made it clear that the NHS is expected to make difficult decisions to manage its budget; allotments are small fry in comparison. Selling off unused sites makes a lot of sense.
However, there are two sides to this story. The entry referred to on Jane Perrone's blog takes a more personal approach. She discusses, for example, the fate of plot holders on little used sites who are moved when the site is sold off. As well as the new locations offered not always being suitable, simply offering an equivalent sized piece of land ignores the investment the tenant has made in their existing plot. Years of cultivation, soil improvement and the like can't be moved. Then, of course, once it's gone it's gone. It's very easy to go from allotment site to housing estate, but that's not true of the other way. Irreversible decisions to reduce capacity shouldn't be taken lightly; that's something the railway industry seems to be learning.
Looking at the lists Bristol's strategy documents it appears that under utilised sites tend to be in the poorer areas of the city, although that's certainly not universally true. Yes, having an allotment is somehow trendy again. Yes, there are plenty of stories about waiting lists stretching out for years. But, again anecdotally, my feeling is that it's a bit of a middle class phenomenon.
Does this indicate that the under utilised plots are simply in the wrong place? If they are, the strategy of selling them off makes a lot of sense. They are of no benefit to solving the much publicised long waiting lists, and their dereliction suggests that the local communities could better use the money and space for something else.
Or, does it indicate a lack of foresight by the authorities in promoting allotments to all? I don't want to go too far down the path of crass generalisations about demographics and the role allotments could play in improving access to - and knowledge of the importance of - fruit and vegetables in poorer neighbourhoods, but I can't help my thoughts heading loosely in that direction.
I want to avoid going off on a social comment tangent. My basic point is: Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Should the council work to drum up demand where there's currently very little, or accept that some locations are a lost cause (for want of a better phrase), get rid of them and reinvest where allotments are winning?
I'm somewhat ambivalent. I can see the case for both points of view.
There's more to write on this, and I may have to revisit this post when I've got my thoughts better formed.
The current strategy (2001-2006) and the new proposals both appear to share the core theme of divesting poorly used or derelict sites, ploughing some of the proceeds into improvements for popular sites. The council's record on this is pretty good. During the period 1999-2005 the council sold off 7 sites (or parts thereof), netting a little under £6.5M, 38% of which was returned to investment in allotments. The improvements are plain to see. For example, the site our plot is on (Ashley Down) has new, high security, palisade fencing, new haulingways and there's talk of a complete overhaul of the water supply.
This investment seems to have paid off. Looking at the 2003 to 2005 period, there appear to be just over 800 new long term (i.e. persevering for the two years measured) tenants. Combining the increased number of tenancies with the reduced number of plots, occupancy rates are now up twenty percentage points to 73%, when compared to 2000. Again, anecdotally, the Ashley Down site has been transformed over three year period we've been there from being half filled with brambles to fully cultivated with a waiting list.
The picture above concentrates on the allotment strategy from a "return on investment" perspective. I'm very sympathetic to this. We live, after all, in a society driven by financial targets. Recent news stories have made it clear that the NHS is expected to make difficult decisions to manage its budget; allotments are small fry in comparison. Selling off unused sites makes a lot of sense.
However, there are two sides to this story. The entry referred to on Jane Perrone's blog takes a more personal approach. She discusses, for example, the fate of plot holders on little used sites who are moved when the site is sold off. As well as the new locations offered not always being suitable, simply offering an equivalent sized piece of land ignores the investment the tenant has made in their existing plot. Years of cultivation, soil improvement and the like can't be moved. Then, of course, once it's gone it's gone. It's very easy to go from allotment site to housing estate, but that's not true of the other way. Irreversible decisions to reduce capacity shouldn't be taken lightly; that's something the railway industry seems to be learning.
Looking at the lists Bristol's strategy documents it appears that under utilised sites tend to be in the poorer areas of the city, although that's certainly not universally true. Yes, having an allotment is somehow trendy again. Yes, there are plenty of stories about waiting lists stretching out for years. But, again anecdotally, my feeling is that it's a bit of a middle class phenomenon.
Does this indicate that the under utilised plots are simply in the wrong place? If they are, the strategy of selling them off makes a lot of sense. They are of no benefit to solving the much publicised long waiting lists, and their dereliction suggests that the local communities could better use the money and space for something else.
Or, does it indicate a lack of foresight by the authorities in promoting allotments to all? I don't want to go too far down the path of crass generalisations about demographics and the role allotments could play in improving access to - and knowledge of the importance of - fruit and vegetables in poorer neighbourhoods, but I can't help my thoughts heading loosely in that direction.
I want to avoid going off on a social comment tangent. My basic point is: Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Should the council work to drum up demand where there's currently very little, or accept that some locations are a lost cause (for want of a better phrase), get rid of them and reinvest where allotments are winning?
I'm somewhat ambivalent. I can see the case for both points of view.
There's more to write on this, and I may have to revisit this post when I've got my thoughts better formed.
posted by AllotmentBoss at 6:11 PM
5 Comments:
Very interesting stuff. You're right about the empty plots being in the wrong places - but how can we encourage everyone to consider taking an allotment? I think schools can help a lot in getting children hooked on the idea of growing stuff to eat, but it'll tkae a few years for the effects to filter down to parents. It would also help if allotments were better advertised to all sections of society, and sites offered half or beginners' plots for newbies ...
Hi I'm trying to get an allotment in the bristol area and I have a choice I either wait on a list for upto 3years or I take a plot miles from home with the advice I "get a very big machette and alot of friends" for a site "not for the feint hearted" some choice.
Im also waiting for an allotment. Where are these sites that need a big machette and are not for the feint hearted? please let me know.
thanks
Chris
Allotments started life as a means for the dispossessed to sustain themselves, that they might continue to feed capitalist economies. Now that the machine can feed them I suppose it is unsurprising that the land is to be taken away. What about a marketing campaign in poorer areas subtly relating to issues of anti-authoritarianism and resistance?
Allotments are left by councils to run down, I don't know why they do it just that they do, there was about three or four rows of them near my home and some were always kept up but as the others were left one by one and they went to the wild, people began to throw things in from old shopping carts to rotary washing dryers, on numerous occasions friends have contacted the council to get one of them but have only been told we are not currently allocating them. What a waste of good land and soil, these could be helping to feed familys.
Post a Comment
<< Home