ALLOTMENTS

JOHN FLAVILL OF 22 GRANARY WAY AND LOUISE ROWLEY SPENDLOVE OF 7 MONKFIELD LANE HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO BECOME CORRESPONDENTS ON ALLOTMENT ISSUES PLEASE PASS ANY COMMENTS TO THEM EMAIL LINK David McEawan-Cox is our representative for the MLC and will be meeting with the developers in the near future. A plan including all the facilities deemed necessary is being prepared. His email EMAIL His phone number is ALTHOUGH OUR ALLOTMENT PROVISION IS 2 YEARS AWAY (STILL) DESPITE BEING DESCRIBED AS PHASED THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT THERE IS UNCERTAINTY IN WHAT SORT OF FACILITIES WILL BE PROVIDED, PLEASE DO NOT RAISE YOUR EXPECTATION OF WHAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ANYTHING YOU READ BELOW WE ARE TOLD THAT FACILITIES REGARDED AS ESSENTIAL OR DESIRABLE IN THE CAMBOURNE "DESIGN GUIDE" ARE NOT TO BE PROVIDED, SECURITY ISSUES SEEM TO BE GIVEN AS A REASON FOR THIS, EVEN THOUGH THE ARCHITECTUAL LIASON OFFICER FOR CAMBRIDGESHIRE, WHO ADVISES ON SECURITY ISSUES FOR CAMBOURNE HAS NOT BEEN ASKED HIS VIEWS BY THE DEVELOPERS THE DEVELOPERS SIGNED THE 106 AGREEMENT ALONG WITH SCDC AND ARE LEGALLY BOUND BY ITS CONTENTS, BUT DUE TO THE LOOSE WORDING OF THE AGREEMENT IT IS NOT TOTALLY CLEAR WHO PAYS FOR THESE FACILITIES, IT COULD FALL TO THE EVENTUAL PARISH COUNCIL IF THE DEVELOPERS DECIDED THEY DO NOT HAVE TO. WHAT WE MUST ENSURE IS THAT THE PROVISION IS ALLOWED FOR IN THE DESIGN STAGE. AND BE PREPARED TO OBJECT TO ANY PLANNING APPLICATION THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN GUIDE AND MASTERPLAN. FROM SECTION 17:3 106 AGREEMENT NO BUILT FORM OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS UNLESS IT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED "DESIGN GUIDE". DESIGN GUIDE THE "DESIGN GUIDE" SECTION FOR ALLOTMENTS SUGGESTS A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT PLANNING TO PROVIDE SUMMARY OF "DESIGN GUIDE" ALLOTMENTS AIM THE ALLOTMENTS WILL BE PLANNED TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY AND EASILY, GENERATE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES, BE ATTRACTIVE AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE DIVERSITY OF THE SETTLEMENT. SITING ALLOTMENTS ARE MOST PRODUCTIVE WHEN THEY ARE NOT OVERSHADOWED, ARE OF EASILY MANAGED SHAPE AND REGULAR LAYOUT, AS WELL AS HAVING GOOD SOIL AND DRAINAGE, SITING NEXT TO PLAYING FIELDS AND PLAY AREAS IS NOT DESIRABLE IN THAT CONFLICT ARISES. EG OVER RETRIEVAL OF LOST BALLS. ACCESS VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR CARS AND DELIVERIES TO EACH PLOT (SUCH AS MANURE) IS DESIRABLE TO EACH PLOT AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE WHOLE SITE. CAR PARKING SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE RATE OF 1 SPACE PER 5 PLOTS. ACCESS ROADS WILL BE HARD SURFACED UNLESS SERVING 5 OR LESS PLOTS. FENCING A ROBUST HARD TO CLIMB FENCE AND LOCKABLE GATES ARE ESSENTIAL, HEDGES ARE ALSO REQUIRED WHERE SHELTER AND SCREENING ARE DESIRED. VIEWS THROUGH FENCES FROM ADJACENT PUBLIC AREAS ARE ALSO DESIRABLE AS AN INCENTIVE TO KEEP THE ALLOTMENTS TIDY AND TO ATTRACT PEOPLE TO THE ACTIVITY COMMUNAL FACILITIES A COMMUNAL BUILDING IS NECESSARY, AS A MINIMUM THIS WILL PROVIDE STORAGE FOR COMMUNAL EQUIPMENT, A KITCHEN AND TOILETS. ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR A SHOP IS DESIRABLE TO PROVIDE A FACILITY FOR GARDENING MEMBERS AS WELL AS PLOT HOLDERS THEREBY WIDENENG THE POTENTIAL MEMBERSHIP. A WATER STANDPIPE CLOSE TO EACH PLOT IS ALSO ESSENTIAL INDIVIDUAL FACILITIES TO AVOID A PROLIFICATION OF SHACKS IT IS DESIRABLE FOR EACH PLOT TO HAVE SECURE TOOL SHED AT LEAST 900MM SQ X 2 M HIGH. 9 MTR WIDE PLOTS SEPERATED BY 600 MM WIDE PATHS ARE TRADITIONAL AND WORK WELL PLOTS OF VARIOUS SIZE SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMODATE DIFFERENT NEEDS FOR EXAMPLE NOVICES OR BUSY PEOPLE REQUIRE AS LITTLE AS 120 SQ MTRS WHILE MORE ACTIVE PEOPLE CAN USE AT LEAST TWICE AS MUCH DRAINAGE A THOROUGH SYSTEM OF LAND DRAINS NOT LESS THAN 900 MM DEEP IS ESSENTIAL. DEVELOPERS ARE PROPOSING THAT WE WILL ONLY GET :- A COMPOST AREA (I THOUGHT THEY WERE MADE BY PLOT HOLDERS THEMSELVES, ANYTHING COMMUNAL WOULD BECOME A DUMPING GROUND - IN MY OPINION) CAR PARK WATER STANDPIPES SECURITY FENCING PATHS, DRAINAGE NO VEHICULAR ACCESS TO INDIVIDUAL PLOTS. NO SHEDS NO COMMUNAL BUILDING NO TOILET FACILITY. NO SHOP THE DEVELOPERS CAN SEEK TO CHANGE DETAILS, BY NEGOTIATION WITH SCDC WITH WHOM THEY MADE THE 106 AGREEMENT. IT IS UNLIKELY THAT SCDC WILL CONDONE SUCH A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE UNLESS THE MLC DECIDE THEY DON'T WANT BUILDINGS ETC. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE NOW RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO INCLUDE A COMMUNITY WING ON THE SCOUT BUILDING ON THE ALLOTMENT BRIEFING PLAN, BUT ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE MLC WANT THIS - MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN A residents view Hi Roger I think a community building adjoining the allotments is an essential part of the development. There could then be courses running on sustainability, organic gardening, wildlife in the garden, bio-diversity etc etc the list is potentially very long. I would have thought that a head teacher with imagination and vision would support such a venture also as it could be an important adjunct to national curriculum work on nature/energy conservation etc. They could even have their own allotment! Please do forward this to the school and anyone else who you think ought to see it. Many thanks Gavin Clayton Programme Development Officer Cross Border Arts