Aimee went to the Council meeting last Thursday at which gating of turf paths was discussed again. Unfortunately for procedural reasons the Council couldn't make a definite decision at that meeting but the upshot is that the Council are shelving the issue for now and will rediscuss at the end of the growing season, probably Oct/ Nov. In the meantime, fences and gates can stay but new people mustn't put new fences over paths. We had a lot of support from councillors, particularly John Bennett, in relation to finding a sensible negotiated solution.

 Don't forget if you're a website member you can click here to Vote on the Paths Poll.

THE STORY SO FAR:

Complaints about the "blocking" of turf access paths with gates or fencing led the Council to rule on May 5th that NO gates or fencing would be allowed on the Lethlean Lane site. 

This was discussed at the Hayle Allotment Society meeting on 6th May and there was a lot of strong feeling which led to Aimee going back to the Council to say:

• would it not be acceptable to have gates if they can be fastened open, thereby allowing full access with wheelbarrows and watering cans? = OPTION A
• the paths on the lower section of the allotments don't lead anywhere except the relevant allotments - what are they for? If they have to be rabbit fenced down both sides, noone will use them for anything. Surely the point of the paths is to allow allotment holders access to plots, otherwise there is no point in even having them? Since the site is to be closed by a main gate, there will be no public right of way anyway.
• since only 5 allotments are affected by this ruling and most people on the site are not interested in sharing paths, would it not be acceptable to apply for permission in writing with the understanding that if any party leaves the allotment the agreement is nullified? = OPTION A
• the sharing of paths is encouraging neighbourly and community behaviour in at least 2 out of the 5 cases affected - it would be a shame to lose this

As a result, some members of the Council came to the site to have a look for themselves. There was then discussion of a new idea:

• A possible way forward was discussed, whereby the smaller paths which run parallel to the main access road on the upper part of the allotments and the grass paths which divide the larger plots of the lower part of the allotments would be incorporated into the plots and would no longer act as general access paths. Therefore plotholders would effectively be renting half a turf path each, and could decide how to manage that with their neighbour. The two large paths on the upper part of the allotment which run at 90 degrees to the access road would remain as open access and noone should block, gate or fence these. = OPTION B

The issue was then taken back to the Council on 2nd June, with the results above. At that meeting, Aimee was able to tell the Council that 11/19 Society members supported either the gating of turf paths or the incorporation of them into plots, as did 2/3 non society members canvassed, with 1 more supporting the gates option (A).