(a)

at present there were 1400 allotment tenants , on a total of 32 sites city wide;

(b)

the budget in 2009/10 was £87,799 which combined both private and commercial rents; this budget had been used to fund the daily maintenance of each site together with officers’ salaries;

(c)

the cost of a full plot was £31 per annum and a half plot £15.50 per annum; all tenants were required to pay an initial £5 for the key to the allotment site; water charges were shared equally by all the tenants on each site;

(d)

the total income received for 2009/2010 which included private rental income, commercial rent and other income totaled £31,563;

(e)

in 2010 there were 1201 people on the waiting list for allotments;

(f)

Knowle Avenue was the newest site in the city which offered 40 full sized plots and one school plot;

(g)

accessibility to the sites had been increased which had included a series of adaptation works (raised beds, car parking closer to the sites, gravel and tarmac footpaths and handrails);

(h)

following a successful pilot scheme, half size plots had been introduced in 2003, as people had been finding it difficult to maintain full size plots;

(i)

future projects included the Central Park Action Plan which proposed amendments to some of the allotment sites within Central Park and the production of an allotment strategy;

(j)

both section 106 and capital receipts from the sale of land used for allotments could be used to develop new sites, or improve capacity and function of existing ones;

(k)

the service regularly benchmarked against other local authorities to ensure the delivery of an excellent service and to adopt best practices.

(l)

the provision  of the allotment service was a statutory one;

(m)

in order to increase the fees in line with other local authorities, a benchmarking exercise was being undertaken; although it was anticipated that the increase in the fees would not be substantial as this could lead to the service being unaffordable to residents;

(n)

Cardiff was just one of the local authorities that the city benchmarked itself against;

(o)

the council was currently looking at increasing the capacity of the service via extending current sites and renting private land;

(p)

there were specific issues with the number of people on the waiting list; some people wanted particular sites and were unhappy to accept other sites that were offered;

(q)

work was currently being carried out with the planning department to build into the planning process the use of section 106 monies to fund the provision of allotments;

(r)

the area near the castle at Plympton St Maurice was unsuitable as an allotment site, due to the large trees shading the area and inhibiting the growth of plants;

(s)

additional facilities, such as the provision of toilets could be achieved through increased income, although it was anticipated that there would not be a substantial increase in the fees, as this could result in people not being able to afford the service.

(1)

that the panel support all efforts being made to find additional land for allotment plots and recommend all channels are explored including direct discussions with public and private land owners eg the National Trust;

(2)

that officers establish the funding available in the medium term  to contribute towards the allotment service from capital receipts and Section 106 monies;

(3)

that rents are reviewed on an annual basis but any rent increase should not be such to disadvantage enterprise and other groups using the allotments (for example schools, community groups, groups with special needs, those on low incomes and also making good use of the neighbourhood profiles);

(4)

that a review of the plot sizes and associated costs, is undertaken.