MINUTES OF THE S.H.A.G.S.

COMMITTEE
Meeting held on 14 November 2018 in the Ted Allen room
In Attendance: Mike Cobley (MC)(Chair); Carole Pamphlett (CP)(Treasurer.); Roger Glanville
(RMG)(Dep. Chair); Peter Hicks (PDH) (Secretary); Rod Cooley (RC); Chris Overton (CO); Alan
Stevenson (AS); Jane Keech (JK); Keith Davison (KD); John Myres (JM) Fraser Gordon (FG); Keith
Rowland (KR) and Linda Gahagan (LG).
Apologies: Chris Wilson, Roger Gillett, Irene Boogerman, Albert Calleawert, Jim Machin, Dominic
Houlihan, Jenny Stevenson, Mark Sanders, Roger White, Marcia Dorey and Hazel Upton.
Mike Cobley welcomed everyone.
1. Review of minutes from October
1
The minutes of the October meeting were approved as a true record by those present. All actions that
had been recorded have been completed.
2. Finance
2.1 CP reported a quiet month with the majority of expenses having now been paid. There are a couple of
outstanding repair bills to pay.
The bank balance stands at £10,459.33.
The Cross Lane manure receipts have been received but have not yet been banked.
The bid for next year’s grant has been submitted to HTC. We received £3,000 for 2018 and, after
consultation with East Harpenden Garden Society who advised they were increasing their bid by 3.5% in
line with August RPI, we increased our bid for 2019 to £3,100 which is a 3.33% increase. More importantly
it is a user-friendly round number. We won’t get any feedback from HTC until we get a yes or no response
to our bid.
Last call for any expenses – if you have any outstanding get them to CP as soon as possible.
CP reported that because so many of the plot-holders are renewing their rent online, it has been decided
that we will reduce the number of rent renewal days from four to three. These will be held on 3rd, 10th and
17th March.
3. Site Matters
Site Reps’ reports: See Reports circulated.
KD reported on the problems caused to Churchfield plot-holders during the recent Co-op refurbishment
which lasted three weeks. Main details are covered in the Site Reps’ Reports.
MC repeated that we had been advised that, during the Co-op refurbishment, there would be two days
where we would have no access to the car-park whereas in reality it has been nearly two and a half weeks
that the car park has been closed; and that there would be no access to the Churchfield site itself for two
days, whereas it was actually four days due to the contractors fencing off the site entrance. The dates we
were given for the work were 9th and 10th November, in fact the contractors were on site from 23rd to the
26th October.

CP reported that Co-op rents the car park from St Albans council who own it.
KD reported that Phil Wright of HTC also tried to get more information from the Co-op but was
unsuccessful.
MC said that he wanted to request a second access point to the Churchfield site as part of the
maintenance plan, even if is just a single gate to the pathway running between Churchfield “spur” and
Piggotshill Lane.


KD reported that the no-parking sign outside the site entrance has been removed; he showed a photo
taken that day (14th November) of a commercial lorry blocking the entrance; and said that he has seen
vehicles parked there doe as long as three hours.
Action Point: MC to contact Phil Wright requesting an explanation for the disruption caused.
MC asked for all site reps to supply a list of unused gates left over from expired wayleaves.
JM reported that Topstreet Way had taken orders for 122 barrows of manure and had consequently
ordered one trailer load. The supplied manure filled 118 barrows at a rough cost of £1.10 per barrow. The
missing four barrows were supplied by contributions from the successful 118 barrow-holders.
KD brought a handful of hawthorn cuttings to the meeting that were picked up from the Churchfield site.
This formed part of the litter caused by the flail hedge-cutting method used by HTC’s contractors. He
pointed out that no warning was given by the council or the contractors and such cuttings could potential
cause injury to plot-holders had there been any working on the site at the time of the cutting. It took 2KD
a
whole day to clear the site of all the hawthorn cuttings last year: he estimated it was about 2 inches deep
and as far as 20 foot into the site from the hedge in some places.
Action Point: MC to write to Carl Cheevers to complain about the cuttings.
MC said he would add a deer-proof chain-link fence request for Cross Lane as part of the maintenance
plan.
4. Lettings
JM had sent an e-mail advising that the letting percentage was still 94.8%. We have 22 vacant plots, with
11 prospective plot-holders on the waiting list - with one plot let and one plot given up in the past month.
Jim also reported the number of plot-holders who have agreed to receive their renewal notice by e-mails.
Of the 312 plot-holders, 298 have given an e-mail address and, of those, 221 have agreed to receive their
renewal by e-mail.
The number for Associate Members is 78 total, 61 with e-mail and 15 agreeing to e-mail renewal.
Jim said he would contact the 123 e-mail lessees to check if they will agree to receive electronic renewal
notices.
5. Machinery
In addition to the reports summary, AS told the meeting that he and CO had attempted to repair the HR
strimmer which appeared to have a pull-start problem; but that the issue was more complex so they took it
to Herts Garden Machinery who are going to charge £60 to repair it. This is the corrected figure rather
than the £43 quoted in the Reports Summary. AS pointed out that the strimmer was quite old, so if it goes
wrong again it may be more economic to scrap it and replace it rather than repair it again.
AS pointed out that the new rotovators were not easy to clean as the blades face inwards which makes
access to the inside of the blades difficult. He also said that cleaning with a hose wasn’t advisable
because the bearings could be damaged.
The intention going forward is to complete basic service of machines “in house” rather than sending them
out to be services. CO said this depends on site reps being honest as to when their machinery requires
servicing. Ideally machinery will be serviced every two years rather than annually as is currently the case,
which could save the Society up to £1000.
AS reiterated the point that he and CO should be the first point of contact for all Site Reps, rather than
contacting Tim at Herts Garden Machinery direct.
6. Projects/New Developments
RMG updated us with the latest on the 50th anniversary plans for next year. He went around the awards
evening canvassing ideas and reported that these were the popular suggestions:


A Treasure Hunt for children, with the hope of encouraging families to attend. RMG suggested that a
difficult Treasure Hunt, comparable with the one at Aylett’s Nurseries, stimulates the children’s interest
more and keeps families on site longer.
The Photo display at the awards evening was popular so one that spanned the entire 50 years would be
even better. A suggestion was to ask members to send in their own photos, with a competition for the
earliest picture of the allotment.
A Produce Show was suggested, although RMG thought a scaled down version would be more suitable.
Following an item on Gardener’s World, RMG thought about running a competition to see who could grow
the most potatoes in a bag.
It was suggested that we should get an article into the quarterly Harpenden Forum newsletter to attract
more interest.
RMG reminded us that we need to decide on a date to hold our celebration. MC suggested that it could
3
coincide with the Southdown Festival, held this year from September 14th to 16th.
7. Shop

FG reported that receipts had been very good over the past few weeks. The manure and compost had
been selling very well: one plot-holder bought eleven bags on Sunday.

8. Communications
RD said he would send out the note from Irene B requesting articles for the Annual Newsletter. He drew
our attention to the statistics he had produced as part of his monthly report that referred to our website
usage. The data for unique visits refers to the number of individual IP addresses that connect to the
website. RD questioned the number of unique visits as the total reported, 983, is more than the number of
members,
FG suggested that search engines could be directing visitors to our site without them intending to go
there.
RD said he would seek expert advice to help us better understand what the numbers mean.
9. Awards

LG reported on the Awards evening and process. The weather didn’t help judging as a lot of the plots
weren’t looking their best due to the lack of water.

LG pointed out that many of the PH plots that had had new plot numbers made had not put them up on
the plots, causing plot identification to take longer than expected. Three full days had been set aside
from 11th to 13th July; judging took from 9:30 to 19:30 each day with just one hour’s break for lunch.

A names-and-plots list had been provided by lettings, with a separate list of phone numbers and e-mails.
It was assumed that these lists matched with the same number of people on each list. Unfortunately this
wasn’t the case as the Aldwickbury gold award went to the wrong plot-holder. For future years, a single
list with all information on it would prevent such mishaps happening again.

It was also suggested that any joint plot-holders should nominate which named plot-holder should be
nominated for any award.

MC suggested producing a Guide to Judging for future reference.

KD asked if there was a reason why the number of commended plots was fewer than previous years. LG
pointed out that there was clear criteria for judging plots and, for example, sometimes plots might look
particularly good but not have such a wide variety of crops being grown thereby losing points for lack of
variety. She reassured the meeting that plots had been judged on the same criteria as previous years
with the same number of awards available.


CP distributed the uncollected certificates to Site Reps to pass on to award winners.

LG suggested that nominations could have been stricter as there had been 18 plots nomimated that in
the judges opinion were Not Up To Standard (NUTS). On the other hand, one of the gold award winners
had not been nominated but had been caught by the judges looking at non-nominated plots.

LG also suggested that site reps should visit the other sites to get a wider view of the quality of plots.

It was generally thought a good idea for Site Reps to be available on their sites for the days of judging to
offer advice and assistance to the judges.

10. A.O.B.

10.1 Publicity leaflets: JK brought along a box of publicity leaflets for us to admire. The committee 4
agreed that the leaflets were very good and that Jane had done an excellent job in producing them.

10.2 Unattended Tools at Piggotshill: Chris Wilson had raised a concern that there were a some tools
left unattended by the Ted Allen Room which could potentially be used to break into the TAR. It was
established that they belonged to Joe Payne of plots 68 and 87. CP said she had told Joe on the
previous weekend that there had been concerns raised; and she told the meeting that the area had been
tidied up. MC said that the tools were now in a toolbox which wasn’t locked.

PDH said that the main concern was that the tools could be used to break into TAR, or damage other
property and, with an electrical circular saw still in the area in addition to the tools being unlocked, that
concern still existed. PDH asked why Joe had to leave the tools where they were: couldn’t they be taken
home, or kept locked inside the TAR?

MC suggested asking Joe to keep the tools in one of the sheds. FG suggested that they should be put
into one of the sheds immediately without consulting Joe, and if Joe complains then he should be told to
take them off site.

MC pointed out that there were CCTV signs in place to deter any would-be intruders, but conceded that
there wasn’t actually any CCTV in place.

The meeting agreed that the tools should be locked away or removed from the site and MC said he
would deal with it.
Action Point: MC to lock the tools away or to ask Joe to remove them from site.
10.3 Plot 31: MC reported to the meeting that Carl Cheevers of HTC had forwarded a request to us from
a community-interest company called Plot 31 who were looking for land on which to grow flowers for
resale.

CP said she had looked at their website where it said they were a community garden organisation which
is completely different concept to an allotment society, especially as they are looking to sell the flowers
they grow.

MC suggested we should say “no, thank you” to them. Although we have four vacant plots at PH, this
would raise questions of who has keys and who would be onsite.

RC raised the question of what would happen if there were potential members who wanted the vacant
plots if they had been given to Plot 31.

The committee agreed that this request didn’t fit in with allotment procedure.
10.4 Wayleaves: RC said that Shireen Langdon of Oakley Road plot 2 and 6 had suggested that vacant
plots should be covered with landscaping sheet while waiting for letting.


MC pointed out that at about £15 per roll with 2 to 3 rolls needed for an average plot that would be
relatively expensive compared to weed-killing vacant plots which is what happens to vacant plots on PH.
MC also reminded site reps that there is a wheeled-strimmer at PH, small enough to fit into the back of a
car, that can be lent to any plot to remove excess growth before letting if required.
10.5: Reminder of earlier start to next meeting: 7pm!

Date of Next Meeting: 12th December 2018 19:00 in the Ted Allen Room
followed by Xmas drinks and nibbles.