craigfoot field allotments

We have taken some time and have had a good look over the proposal and would comment as follows:

1. The first and really obvious point is that the completed design encroaches into a beautiful garden space created by a villager during covid lockdown, if proceeding the design would need to be altered, some photographs are included for your information. If you were to try and proceed with this design and destroy any of the garden area there will be a huge public backlash.

The Council acknowledges the building works that have been carried out to the support of local residents, however should stress this has been done without prior authorisation. It has recently come to our attention that a significant structure has been built on site, and Officers will require to have this structure assessed by Planning/Building Control, while any agreement via our Estates/Streetscene team may be required to ensure the area is maintained by the local residents and has the appropriate insurance in place for public liability. Please note however, the structure has been built on the floodplain and this issue will first require to be discussed with the Council's Flood Risk Officer. As the Council were not permitted to provide permanent structures by SEPA while designing the allotments due to the risk of flooding, the Service may require to speak with SEPA regarding any potential risk. We also note that stones appear to have been removed from the riverbank and the area will need to be monitored for erosion in the future, particularly during high water. The team also observed a significant amount of Japanese knotweed that is growing within the bed areas that will require to be treated to ensure no further spread.

There is no plan to alter the main design of the allotment, however following planning permission being awarded and discussions with relevant Services and Statutory Agencies, the Council could consider to submit a variation to the Planning team to ensure that there is a compromise between the allotment and community run garden ground, within the scope of a formalised agreement and once the area has been deemed safe for public use.

2. Given the discovery of lead in the soils which make the existing ground unusable in terms of allotments why was the project not halted at this first discovery and a consultation raised to discuss other options, rather than spending almost £50k on consultants fees which we feel are extreme as they stand. How was the project tendered in relation to consultants?

The design works included all assessments required for Planning, and initially the scope of the project was to provide vehicular access down to the site. The scope was later changed to pedestrian access with drop-off zone due to cost of the construction. Levels of lead were not excessively high for use as open space, and given there was no change to the access and boundary structures, bio-availability studies were carried out to determine whether lead levels could reduce levels further to be within optimal rates for food growing. Upon confirmation that the lead, although natural in occurrence still exceeded levels for direct food growing, raised beds were provided to ensure the site could host an allotment. Please note that Initial feedback from SEPA at the start of the project indicated the land should not be raised or have permanent structures on the floodplain; following ground investigation and soil analysis, later discussions with the Waste Licence and Flooding Team at SEPA confirmed that a reasonable solution to provide an allotment without excessive movement of soil to remove any leaded soil, was to provide raised beds.

3. The consultant's report includes fees at 20%(£46,697.91) which we assume is over and above the £48,458.00 already paid to the consultant. If this is the case the design fees for a project Base Construction Cost of £258,328.88 are coming in at circa 36.8%, how can anyone justify claiming that level of fee and worse still how can EDC justify accepting that level of fee.

The £46,697.91 is not additional to the fees already paid. Please also note the costs provided in this estimate is a first version, and at the higher end of costs. The Council has met with the consultants since receiving the report to discuss the removal and significant reduction of costs relating to soil/vegetation disposal and amendments to infill materials and path surface type/edging. This reduces the overall base cost considerably.

4. With an anticipated final cost of £402,635, would it not have made more sense at the very early stages of this project to consider other sites for the allotments which would be more suitable without the need for extensive site clearance. Far better use of the £400k could be made.

An NEC4 contract will be used to procure the work with a fixed cost price based on the revised estimate for direct/base construction works, contingency and overheads. This reduces the costs related to risk/inflation to the Council, while the Service will compare in-house and other third party costs for traffic management which may reduce costs significantly.

Utilities relocation would be separately arranged through Council revenue.

The cost for the construction is therefore expected to be considerably lower than the first draft of costs provided.

5. Why is there such an extensive clearance taking place when the existing top and base soil will not be used for planting as raised beds are being introduced for planting, the danger from lead entering the produce being grown is negated by the raised beds. Reducing the clearance would set aside a considerable sum for other uses at the site.

Soil excavation would be utilised to regrade the access down into the site, as the access has a degree of cut and fill to provide a level access down to the main growing site. As indicated above, the Council has requested the consultants re-cost based on keeping soil on site and reducing clearance.

6. Why is there a need to spend £21, 795.15 in diverting overhead services.

The cables present are at considerable height and would offer no problems to anyone below and appear to be in good working order. There is no issues in the deign that would require poles or overhead cables to be diverted.

The consultants reported the low height of the overhead cables, and have suggested re-diversion as a health and safety measure to reduce the risk of arcing e.g. during construction.

7. The stretch of road off which pedestrian access and a drop off zone is to be created is well known for speeding, how is this danger going to be removed and once a user of the allotments has dropped off equipment or supplies where does the person park their car or do they go home and then walk back to the allotments. The drop off point should be moved west towards the Co-op, further away from the speeding corner and this would also save cutting down existing mature trees.

Access for allotment users will be via an extended path/steps that will run east of the co-op and down into the allotments. The Council will work with the allotment association to ensure that when there are pre-arranged drop offs arranged only by the Council (compost deliveries)/skip hire etc, appropriate traffic management will be in place. This arrangement has been discussed and agreed with East Dunbartonshire Roads Service.

8. There are footpaths noted in the design as non-adopted, who is to maintain these foot paths?

The Council's Streetscene Technical Support Team will maintain all non-adopted paths.

9. We assume that an allotments society will be formed by those using the allotments if the project reaches completion, is the ownership of the land being proposed to be handed over to such a not for profit body? If not then EDC must adopted essentially all of the area and maintain it as required.

In the case of the Council's other allotment at Rosebank, Kirkintilloch, the Council retains ownership and supports the allotment association by overseeing the maintenance of the site. It is expected this would be the same set-up as Rosebank.

10. Can you advise how many people are on the list for an allotment.

130 people are currently listed on the allotment waiting list.

11. Finally we do agree that this project needs to be formally presented to the village by EDC and are happy to arrange a suitable date and time in the coming months. We would suggest that a formal presentation takes place perhaps on a Saturday afternoon with an open afternoon to follow allowing villagers to wander about and have a closer look at the plans on display boards and ask questions of those presenting.

We envisage we will use a format similar to what you have described.

I hope this information is useful.