It's been a couple of years.

I'd better start with some kind of apology, our website hasn't apparently been working properly for a while, and it may not work on tablets even now.
It was built for far more, we had much planned for it, but it failed to materialise when everything changed for us.


That change was mainly one of focus - both for the farm and for those of us still involved. For the farm this meant backing off from acquiring land for now - sitting on our laurels perhaps - while for myself and others it meant taking a break from the whole scheme and exploring pastures new.

I stayed on as director, but took no part in any plans or events. Ideally someone would have joined as another director to give the project some momentum, but no one grabbed that thistle at the time. Whether this was the best situation or not, it certainly allows me now to look at the plans with fresh eyes.


I can tell you they're as viable as they ever were, and it would be very easy to become sucked back in and carried away with all the various possibilities.
The basic premise and idea - focusing on education and ensuring it's a self-sustaining project - is still possible. The numerous schemes now successfully carrying out similar ideas to those we had 4 years ago are testament to that.

What is vital though, and is certainly lacking right now, is a group of people willing to take this on with enthusiasm.
With a lot of support I might have been willing to run with it again, but I bare a few too many scars and carry a fair amount of cynicism for people and organisations the project will need on their side.


So this is a call for anyone - an individual, a couple, a bunch of friends, a group, anyone - looking for a new adventure to throw themselves into. It's fun, it's hard work, it becomes a big part of your life, it might even become your livelihood.
You might have innovative ideas of how it might work, or no idea. Farm experience might not actually help - you have to think very differently at times, and be open to new ideas - often not farming related.

We've taken all details of our plans off the website, and haven't mentioned any of them here so you aren't distracted. You can forget everything you think of when you imagine an urban farm if you like - I was never really happy about describing ourselves as one, as the image it conjured up for people we talked to wasn't what we intended to be.


I'm willing to stay on for a year or two in a back seat role, pass on any experience, knowledge, and contacts we've picked up - but at the end of the day it will be a fresh start to the project. The new arrivals can take it in any direction they wish - reign in the plans, or chase rainbows, it will be theirs to play with.



If you're at all interested please get in touch. We promise not to throw you in the deep end or get in your way if you want to dive straight in.

Phone 07904 925 902 or email Jamie@NUFP.org.uk

Jamie

Happy New Year

Well, it's 2012 at last.  I hope you had a merry Christmas.  Mine had a small dash of regret we haven't the site to throw the various ideas we've had for a Christmas farm event at – but they can wait.
2011 was a unsteady year for the farm – certainly it's least productive.  It ended with a cornerstone of the whole project, Liz Tate, leaving us for pastures new.
We'll miss her and her positive attitude a great deal – as well as her family – but I think she's doing the right thing for them and wish them all the best of luck.  I'm a little jealous!

I haven't been able to spend as much time on the project myself either, and with no practical work to be done it's been difficult to keep everyone interested.  Selling an idea that conjures up completely the wrong image without explanation, isn't easy for pulling in new blood either.

It's save to say, money is tight for everyone at the moment.  Oddly, there seems to still be huge chunks of money blowing around, but mid-size grants have all but dried up.  There's been a change in attitude of grant type too. 
Before, they loved 'new projects', or whatever you could persuade them was new (I will write about the dubious world of grants one day), but now the serious money is only interested in existing projects and organisations – proven success and supposedly safe hands.

We could probably get a grant for this typing I'm doing, or any of the other ten jobs I have to do for the project this month, but, quite frankly, folk doing that is the problem.

We've spent a few months going back over the plans and cutting wherever we can, but it's a basic fact: no matter how we do it, just to make the site suitable for visitors will cost at least £50,000.  You then have up to 10 years of growth towards the farm as it stands in those plans we flashed around – costing at least another £200,000.  Every year we don't have the profitable sides of the project in place, the running costs will have to be found as well – around £50,000 a year.  We won't go into the land costs that begin it all either, as that'll be covered much more in the future.
That can look a little daunting, but when you see what we can do with that amount and how much is spent by others for their projects, it's quite cheap.

I say we've been cutting plans, but actually a new direction has opened up, which we may talk about next time.  How much more investment will be needed for this though, is another matter – and perhaps more importantly, we have no one with the skills to really take it on.  But what's new?

The year is new, that's what, and these plans won't happen unless we get on with it.  So here's hoping it really is a happier and more productive year for those working on the farm, those now elsewhere, and for all of you.

Jamie

Busy busy busy

So this week, I've been:

• trying to calculate a more accurate figure on the amount of grass we need, 
• and how much we can eke out on the site,
• seeing if we can decide on the sheep breeds we might go with,
• looking at rearranging the fencing plan, 
• attempting to cut the cost of the driveway, 
• exploring new grant options, 
• remeasuring the position of the farmyard, 
• seeing if we can re-order the building phases, 
• trying to pin down the cost of a completely different new barn,
• and various company bits and pieces.

I've also been thinking about the practical things I'm supposed to be doing - renovating chicken houses, sketching new pictures for the website, collecting the trailer, stocking with hay bales, etc etc.

It's never not busy, and I kind of like that, but sometimes I wish I could concentrate on just a couple of things at a time.




We're over a year away from actually having sheep (unless something remarkable happens and only at all if something remarkable happens), but with land and money so tight getting this right could be make or break.
Different breeds of sheep are different weights, so need different amounts of food, and also have different eating habits.

We also have to remember they aren't pets, no mater how cute a particular breed looks, they might not be suitable for us - ie make any money to keep the place going. They have to be productive.

That said, looks are important too, we can't be tempted by anything unusual.  If it doesn't look like a sheep it confuses people.  We have experience of this.  At one event we held there was a particularly large breed of sheep that doesn't have a fleece.  Everyone I met later, told me they'd seen the goats.
'Sheep, they were sheep...'

We have a long list, but I'm looking in more detail at a few breeds.

Jamie

Where we'd like to be...

Here's a tour of the prospective site.

It's 12 acres of grassland, scrub, and trees to the west of Hill Farm Rise in East Hunsbury.

It was quarried as part of the Hunsbury Hill Ironstone workings - more of which later - then grazed, and has since been left to the rabbits and green woodpeckers.



Network Rail only fenced that which they had a use for, a boundary of densely planted trees separates the rest from the road.

This is currently used as a bike track by local kids, with some pretty good construction work.

We've no intention of changing this other than making it easier to access, and would keep this long band of trees outside our boundary fence.



At the base of the hill, beside the road, you find the oldest oak trees on the site.

Out of site from the houses, on a quiet road, it's also where things are often dumped.  Pushed through the old hedgerow from the path which is raised over a meter above the site at this point.  Did I mention there's a covenant requiring the owners to keep the place tidy and safe?  It's almost like Network Rail have never read the deeds! 

 

All the old maps of the area show a clump of trees here, and we intend to reinstate the original hedgerows that intersected at this point.


One of those hedgerows will divide the farm from the car park.  This area has had material dumped on it by Network Rail.  We thought it may be from the reservoir they dug to the south, but it doesn't appear to be local soil and only creeping plants seem keen to grow in it.  
It was spread right up onto the site, but we'll come back to that.  Ballast, hardcore, and building debris are mixed in with it, and it forms a large enough space for our requirements.

There is currently no vehicular access onto the site at all, and if our parking has to be at the southern end so does the entrance.  The logical answer is to share the access Network Rail have created for themselves.

The fence could be pulled back and the land levelled allowing vehicles into the car park, without Network Rail losing much parking space.  In fact, if the fence and gate is for security they really need to re-think it anyway.

There are bus stops into, and out of town, nearby, and there would be minimal impact on traffic day-to-day as we're not that kind of attraction.

That would be the logical place to have it, but if Network Rail weren't willing, there is the option of the original field entrance.  This surprised us when we found it on the old plans, but it makes perfect sense on the ground and links with a, now non-existent, footpath.
To have the access here would mean removing trees we'd rather not touch, and making some alterations to the plans, but it is possible.

The main gate to the farm would be to the north of the car park, a driveway leading up the site, following more of the tipped material.  A lot of Bristly Ox-Tongue along here, with it's disease-looking warty leaves, as well as teasel - which coincidentally can cure warts.
A wall either side, to the right you might hear the pigs, to the left... digging?

The driveway leads up to the farm yard and the main buildings.

The first will begin life as the mess hall and store, but when they're moved on it will be a shop/cafe.

That is the first of various side-projects that we'd be happy to franchise out as it could be a business on it's own.  There's plenty of room for more outdoor seating behind it, and the building would be extended to extent shown as needed.


This was originally going to look out at our market garden and polytunnels, but when we first spoke to them about the project the local parish council explained they've been looking to create some allotments in the area and wondered if we could help.

The site may be 12 acres, but 4 acres of that is covered in trees.  The farm itself needs at least 6.5 acres for grazing, buildings, etc.  So things were a little tight - there was no way we could offer the land required for a proper allotment site.

It was still a good idea, so we made some changes to the plans, and the way other fields could be managed, and found we could fit in around 25 'starter' allotments.

The standard allotment plot size is 10 pole, or 250 square meters, regarded as a good size for a family to work.  These days it's seen as too much for modern families with little time, and with a lack of allotments nationally they usually only offer 5 pole plots.
If the family have never taken on an allotment before it's also standard practice now to offer them a starter plot, easing them into the work necessary while they wait for a full-size plot to become vacant.
These are often hardly worth the trip to work them, so we made our starter plots larger, around 4 x 9m.  Dig-able in a day, yet would produce plenty of food for the family if worked sensibly.

Having seen most of the vacant land in the town, we have a suggestion for a larger allotment site nearby, but it's under a lease at the moment, and will be up to the parish council to negotiate over if they wanted to.  It would be nice to see people graduating on from our plots to something more substantial... or maybe they'll run our market garden.

We'd seen how badly allotments fitted in to other farms.  For the public to have to walk through them made working there feel like you were an exhibit.  Alternatively, creating an area out of the way would mean a separate entrance and parking, with everyone having keys to access it.
By placing them here, near the entrance, sharing the parking and facilities, yet out of the way of most visitors, we hope this creates a better feel.


Back at the farm yard, there's space for a workshop next to the messhall/store/shop/cafe - very useful on rainy days, but it would be available for craft demonstrations etc.

The main building is designed to be built up over several years rather than appear in one expensive go, but eventually will include: the toilets, office, platform for disabled visitors and small children to get eye to eye with the animals, and a courtyard which will finally have some kind of roof creating a classroom.

This is where the main handwashing sinks are located, although there would be others around the site as well.


There's room for a small barn next to this, as required, and opposite (amongst those trees that are not as dense as appear on here) is a duckpond.

The pigs should be in several pens in a lower area off the farmyard, keeping them out of the sun, and allowing them occasional access amongst a small copse of young oak trees.  It also allows visitors not wanting to mix with the pigs the option of by-passing them.

It's possible this won't be suitable, for various reasons, in which case there's an area in the centre of the site that could used instead.
If the pigs aren't here though, we have to find a use for this part of the site.  One idea is for a few workshops for start-up craft/art-based businesses along the driveway.  I must stress they'd be workshops, not shops, but no serious plans have been made.


There are two routes from the farmyard, west takes you to the market garden, which would eventually be mostly polytunnels, and the commercial chicken flock.

North from the farmyard takes you into the open run-around area of the 'fried-egg fields'.  The shape was dictated by the tree line and contours, but it seems fitting.  This first open area will have seating and a few things for kids to play around with, as well as give them a view of many paddocks.

The track here follows the long-gone footpath that would take you through houses and gardens if it still existed.
 
These smaller paddocks allow us to control the grazing easier, with the animals being moved day-by-day to fresh grazing - so, yes, some days some of them will be empty.

There's a walk around the 'yolk' taking you over the pond at the west boundary.  According to the old maps there was a pond here before, but Network Rail seem to have filled much of it in with more of their dumped soil.

The two tracks converge as we head up the site, taking you between two more paddocks.  Much of the boundary lines from here on have formed naturally by hawthorn and elder. Laying them and planting more, we'll create hedgerows where views aren't needed.


That old footpath keeps heading straight north-west, but we'll come back to that and follow the track to the centre of the farm and the limits of the public section, where you can turn to see this view.

That's Gayton on the horizon somewhere.



The main field at the top of the site would be just less than an acre.

This would be available for events etc. organised by whoever would like to use it - the only limit is damage caused to the grass. Our rear gate at the top of the site can provide a separate access if needed.  While smaller than other parks can provide, the added night-time security hopefully offers something different to other spaces in the town.


Just beyond the gate from the public section is where our cow shed will be, and any other buildings we may need creating a secondary hub.  To begin with that's no more than a stable on a concrete base, but there's space to grow.

Beside it is space for a small lodge.  Security on the site is important, as are the finances.  If one of the farm workers could live on site, even for only part of the year, this could help with both.  It's also likely we'll need extra help in the summer, and so having accommodation on site gives us the option for holidaying volunteers.

We have other plans for this spot, but you can find out about that on our tenth anniversary (think positive).

Beyond the buildings are five fields which would be part of a rotation.  Rested for a year, grazed for a year, ploughed for high yield crop such as wheat for a year, beans or something adding nutrition to the soil in the fourth, and an extra crop in the fifth year.

These are large patches of land, so various crops would actually be tried in each, including more vegetables, alternative crops, energy crops, even flowers – fields as diverse as farming in the UK.

There aren't any conifers on the site, and the difference between the conifers and deciduous trees (undergrowth etc) is something we'd like to include, and this scrub area in the centre makes a perfect spot.  It's also good for wildlife which we are eager to include in the education mix we'll offer.

All of these areas would be closed off to the public, only open permanently from the summer until harvest time – mainly because there would be nothing to see.

Beyond the conifers are the summer meadows. 

These would be left for silage or hay, saving us in feed bills later in the year, and also allowing wild flowers to grow.

Running through them in an avenue (that has already partially formed naturally) will be the orchard.


At the very top of the site is the largest woodland.  Originally we intended to keep this outside the farm and leave it accessible, however, as the project developed we realised we needed an area of woodland that we could allow the kids of our various clubs to explore and play safely in.
The exact location of the fence line has yet to be decided, but it would be hidden within the wood so from the outside there would appear to be no change.



Within this wood ran the railway for the ironstone quarry linking it by rail to Hunsbury Hill and on to Duston Mill beyond Briar Hill.  It didn't follow the route across the site we originally thought, but we've now plotted where it went.  They dug a tunnel for it under the old Towcester Road (now Hill Farm Rise) from this site to the east, and it's still there.

Flooded and filled with rubbish, we thought it should be cleared and dredged, but kept as a pond – the water protects it from serious vandalism.

Its not very large, so when they were using it they had to cut down the railway engine cab and funnel so it would fit through.



Back on the farm then, let's go back to the lost footpath where we left it, and follow it north east.

We toyed with the idea of a wind turbine here. It would have been the smallest commercial type available, not very large at all - but the reaction by the parish council to the very mention of it put us off.  There would be problems of it casting long moving shadows that may scare the animals anyway.  It was just an idea and not worth the hassle.


Continuing on we reach a very steep slope dropping down to the real railway tunnel.  It curves around until it faces almost directly south.

It doesn't seem too bad in the photos, but standing on it you realise how steep it is.

This slope is roughly 30 degrees, which coincidentally is the angle you need to position solar panels.  As this sudden drop is fairly useless to us (goats would love it, but no one would see them) we've looked into a small solar farm on the part most facing south.  This would need additional investment, but could make money – again this looks likely to be another side project others could profit from.


However, thanks to the government there's much uncertainty over such projects now, and it would need far more detailed investigation nearer a realistic time.  As additional infrastructure would need to be designed into the plan (not too difficult), this would need to be some time before our second, maybe third year.

Also on this well drained slope, a vineyard would work very well (not marked on the drawing above).  Who knows, maybe a whole bottle of wine might be produced!

As the slope curves around to face east, the amount of sunlight falling on it drops and so does the agricultural uses.  There are also several trees growing at the base.  It forms a lovely ampitheatre though, so we're thinking of culture as much as agri-culture (sorry... that's terrible).

It would be quite easy to put in steps and a stage amongst the trees.  Yes, a train passes every 20 minutes, but that adds to the character.  Around 200 people could be sat on the grass bank.
We're not suggesting it would be used constantly, it's just another venue available for everyone to use.  It hopefully leaves you with the idea that we're keen to emphasise - that an urban farm is far more than just a bunch of animals.  It's a managed space for all the town to enjoy, be involved in, and help create.

Come and join the team, and let's see this thing actually happen.

If not the site might be like this instead...

 

(funny what you can find in NBC reports).

7. Double Bluff

Ok, where were we?

It's been a difficult year for key members pushing the project along, key members without whom the NUFP would have existed.  With some having to leave, both directors unable to do as much, organisation being incredibly reluctant to reply to us, and the economy playing it's part, things slowed considerably.  In the time we had, the situation was re-evaluated, and a more detailed, staggered phasing of how the farm would develop was made.

The Homes & Communities Agency finally answered our queries after many weeks and an email to their complaints department (apparently they all go on holiday at the same time).

The current government has spoken quite a bit about giving local people, and those effected by development, a say over it.  It has also laid down a few ground rules for the HCA and their assets, and these are on the HCA website:

• There will be no delays,
• They are open to offers from anyone - community groups or developers - equally,
• They actively promote development, but on the basis of local needs. 'As part [of] our work with local authorities, we are exploring opportunities for taking schemes forward - particularly housing - through community-led initiatives that deliver good value for money and fit with local priorities.  We’ll also be focusing on how communities can benefit from more public and green spaces by helping to restore derelict and under used land.'

How would this effect our situation?  While they don't own the land, the covenant is a powerful (and therefore valuable) asset which almost completely controls it's use.


First of all we needed them to clarify whether they benefit from the covenant at all.  They decided they did.

We explained the current situation: how Network Rail had suggested the covenant beneficiaries had indicated to them that even our temporary plan would be blocked.
You'll remember Network Rail had their own development hope, which they insisted wouldn't be blocked - seemingly contradictory, and certainly not in keeping with being treated equally.

We'd assumed this was a common tactic we've faced - blaming someone else for not being able to support us. 'We'd love to help, but it's out of our hands.'


We asked the HCA, therefore, to clarify their position with regards this land and the covenant.

Amongst their insistence that they'd love to help, but it was out of their hands, they explained they would not oppose development if any plan for the site would be likely to gain planning permission.

This is subtly different from basing decisions on local needs, as the unelected and independent WNDC would quite likely decide whether to grant planning permission for Network Rail's plans - and they have other priorities.  At no point did they mention the local community.


So where do we stand?
Following a thread, prepared to give the end a hefty tug.

Network Rail are, supposedly, a commercial enterprise.  We have to convince Network Rail that development of this site would be very difficult, if not impossible.  That this asset will cost them money to maintain, and will become increasingly troublesome and embarrassing, unless they make the sensible commercial decision and lease it to us.
We will maintain it, improve it, keep it secure, and leave a very light footprint - if we were to fail, the land would still be there, still hold it's value, and would be in a better condition than before.

At the moment Network Rail do not have to do anything though.  They can leave the land derelict.

They blame the covenant, so we have to show it's in our favour - it will only be removed for something that can gain planning permission.
So, to convince Network Rail, we also need to convince the HCA that planning permission for anything other than our plans (or similar) will be impossible.

So how do we do that?

The local councillors have been very supportive in the past, and now is their moment.  Northampton Borough Council needs to step up to the plate.  Do they believe in local green space?  Do they really support the idea of a town farm?  Do they believe in the Local Plan?

Or are they not at the end of this thread?  Does someone else pull their strings?

6. Bluff

And so we come to the real focus of our attention during the last 2 years.

Bluff initially came onto our radar as the twin to our original favoured site.  This good sibling of the Evil Twin was of a similar size, with a similar slope, and also straddled the railway.

However, it was the opposite in so many ways. First, it had only one owner - a blessing after the lengthening lists before. Second, it looked outwards, with views of countryside, rather than inwards to the town centre. This wasn’t necessarily a good thing, as we liked the idea of an urban view from our nugget of countryside, but a view of any kind shouldn't be sniffed at and it's a heck of a view. Third, no one else was laying claim to it. And fourth, and perhaps most importantly, it had been earmarked as green space in the Local Plan for Northampton, and therefore it could not be developed.

Well, we say ‘could not’.

The Local Plan, devised by elected councillors back when the entire area was being laid out, did indeed label it as green space, which should prohibit development – however, the WNDC, unelected and independent, had, quite casually, ignored the Local Plan before, giving planning permission on land that was designated as green space and would certainly not squirm at doing so again.

Added to this though, was a covenant on the land prohibiting development – the site seemed to be perfect.


It took some time to receive a reply from the apparent owner – Network Rail. Six months in fact.

The Land Registry’s copy of the deeds are actually still in the name of the British Rail Board at their old address, which of course doesn’t exist anymore, but let's assume Network Rail do own it for now.

After being redirected to several different offices and departments and back again, we finally received an email dealing with the matter.

They were not interested in working with us, and were actively looking at developing the site.


We obviously contacted them quickly, explaining development wouldn’t be possible, but were told by them that they had contacted the WNDC, who had been encouraging, suggesting they could ignore the Local Plan – no surprise. The covenant holder too, Network Rail said, would not stand in the way of them developing the site.

We cast doubt on their assumption that it was so easy, but suggested a temporary arrangement between us, for just some of the site.  They were only at the very early stages of any development which would be 5 years away at the earliest, and our presence would make the site secure in the meantime, and certainly do no damage.

They could see our point and so asked us for details of what we might do.


At it’s very basic we would need to connect to water and electricity, put in fences, and build the required temporary sheds, stores, and shelters for animals, equipment, and volunteers. A vehicular access would be needed as well - we suggested sharing the current access point to the railway as it only required a fence to be moved – and the rest was merely surface tinkering of the current landscape.
If the agreement was only temporary we’d limit ourselves to the parts of the site most easy to graze with little or no work.

It wasn’t long before we received a curt reply. What we proposed would be classified as development and therefore the current covenant holders would not allow it.

This seemed odd, those covenant beneficiaries would allow the area to be covered in housing, but not allow four temporary sheds?


Which brings us to the question of who these covenant holders were. To understand this we have to explain the history of the site.  You may want to keep notes.

After it had been part of the local ironstone quarry network, it was returned to farmland, until the old Northampton Development Corporation (NDC) began buying up much of the outskirts of Northampton in the 80's to continue the expansion of the town. As part of this, the area was mapped with a new road network and zoning for the possible uses of the land.
It was at this point that the site was labelled as green space, and there was talk of some kind of community hub, with leisure facilities. Whatever plans there may have been for these were scrapped when a nearby Tesco store was built, as it was decided that would do as the hub for the area instead.

The land remained in the Local Plan as green space though, and was a saved policy at the last review, but with no impetus behind anything being done with the land, it has sat empty and forgotten.


Eventually, in 1989, the NDC was packing up it’s work on expanding the town. The remaining land it owned was being parcelled up and given to different organisations. Some of it was passed to the Northampton Borough Council, but the land remaining to be developed around the outside tended to be passed to the newly formed, and quite secretive English Partnerships - a government quango that owned land and promoted development.

In the case of Bluff though, a different route was taken. It was handed to the British Rail Board after details were added to the deeds stating the owners of property NN******* would benefit from a covenant prohibiting any development on it, unless that development related to the operation of the railway.
We’ve no knowledge of any money changing hands, and it seems the British Rail Board didn’t actually have any use for it.

At the time the owners of property NN******** were the NDC, but within days of the deal with British Rail the NN********* property was transferred to Northampton Borough Council.

All remaining assets of the NDC were given to English Partnerships.


The British Rail Board was later disbanded, its assets were then split between BRB (Residuary) and Railtrack. BRB (Residuary) took on disused railway land to sell, while Railtrack concentrated on the railways infrastructure.
As a private company Railtrack went into a frenzy of asset stripping, selling off whatever it deemed no longer necessary to run a rail service, this included railway sidings and other land across the country.

What was left of Railtrack, when it found itself unfit for the purposes of providing a railway infrastructure, was forcibly bought back by the government, and transformed into Network Rail.  They now own the rail infrastructure for the UK including, according to them, the land we are describing.

As it hadn't ever been used as part of rail infrastructure, we had assumed BRB (Residuary) would have owned it.  BRB (Residuary), are still in the process of selling their remaining assets and have an easy to access list of the property they own – the site is not on it, but we did ask them to check their records to be sure. They were very helpful and quick to reply, but do not own it.


Meanwhile, the present government has dissolved English Partnerships, and taken it’s land and assets under the wing of the Homes and Communities Agency – you may have seen their many signs on fields they own surrounding the town.  All of those fields will be developed eventually.


So, who benefits from the covenant?

According to the deeds, it’s the borough council (as owners of NN*******), but Network Rail had suggested it was English Partnerships.

This didn't make much sense to us.  It's normal for a piece of land to benefit from a covenant, rather than an individual – that way it is permanent, rather than until that individual dies – but why would you attach a covenant to a piece of land you owned, but planned to pass on to others within a few days, if you intended to continue benefit from the covenant?  Why not just benefit a small piece of insignificant land (one of the many roadside verges perhaps) that you could retain with no maintenance cost?

And if you did intend to continue to benefit from the covenant, why not mention it clearly in the deeds you are writing?  The law requires any covenant to be clear who benefits after all.


We approached the borough council in the hope they could clarify the situation. Baring in mind the covenant would be worth a considerable sum of money, what did they think?
Over the phone we were told by their legal department that they did indeed benefit from the covenant, but had not been contacted about any development by Network Rail.



With this knowledge we sent a detailed request for information to various councillors in November 2010, asking for their support for a farm and for them to state publicly that they would not allow the land to be developed.
Eager to move on, we added that we needed a reply before January 2011 as our volunteers had lives to lead and the Northampton Urban Farm Project itself, without a clear future, may have to accept defeat and fold.

A request for further information was asked for, as they were looking into the deeds in more detail.

Christmas and New Year came and went, with no reply.  Most of our volunteers left to work on other projects, moved to other towns, found other interests.


The remaining team asked again for a response in late February, to no avail, and so contacted various helpful members of the council to look into it.  Within a week we received an email apologising for the delay, explaining it had been a complicated legal situation, but they now had an answer.

Contrary to their early opinion, they did not now believe the borough council benefited from the covenant.
As part of the overly-complicated agreement when the property NN******** was transferred to the borough council, any covenant that that property benefits from was retained by NDC and therefore passed to English Partnerships and now to the Homes and Communities Agency.

I do hope you're keeping up.

None of this is in the deeds, but in documents that are not publicly available.  It’s worth noting again, the law on covenants demands that they be clear who benefits.


We have since asked the Homes and Communities Agency to clarify their position.  Do they think they benefit from the covenant?   Would they prohibit any development there?  As Network Rail had suggested, would they block our use of the land?


We'll tell more, next time.

5. Delapre Abbey

No code-name for this site as we only ever looked at it to explain to those asking why we knew it could not work as a suitable site. It had been discounted in the very early days quite quickly, as the problems seemed obvious.

It has been constantly raised as an option whenever we talk about a farm, usually by politicians, usually by people when we first have contact with them, but often by the same people again and again.

In the end we were forced to reply to the council with a lengthy report explaining why it isn’t, unfortunately, suitable for an urban farm. It appeared it was eventually read by the councillor who requested it, although we fear he didn’t pay much attention as there was an election on at the time. He may have felt a little put-out; as you'll see, we disagreed with him totally and gave them some tips on more suitable projects they should perhaps be looking into - ones being suggested by others too.

This was probably more involved than he (or anyone else) wanted, but ideas are easy, and hopefully it was passed on to someone who actually cares.

There is some sterling work being done at the Abbey, adding to their plans won't help with the work they still need to do.

In short:-

• The park is favoured heavily by dog walkers, often letting their dogs run free. As we're always explaining to dog owners: they may be right, their dogs might not attack our animals, but our animals don't know that.
• The land has good grazing, but it needs managing.  Either it still floods in winter, giving it that rich soil, but making it unusable for animals all year (foot-rot, and generally trashing the ground) - or it doesn't, and they've destroyed a habitat (season ponds and water meadows) that the UK is losing fast.
• Crops would be impossible. Both because of the flooding, and because ploughing it up would be controversial.  We don't just want to grow a few vegetables.  It had been suggested the walled garden could be a market garden, but as it is more ornamental than a working garden, that doesn't give us much to play with.
• The old farm buildings have limited use for us.  There is a reason barns get converted and farmers don't build them like that any more.  And being separate from the grazing would mean we'd be moving animals through the car park every day, and not 'on site' if sitting in the office.
• Possibilities for the new buildings would be limited due to the listed status of the place - and we'd be as bothered as everyone else that the park was being built on. Polytunnels, that will be vital, would be impossible to hide.
• Shared profits from side-projects: cafe etc
• Limited side-projects for us (no forestry, energy production etc), also limits to side-projects for the Abbey (no fireworks, no cannons, etc)
• Grant competition. With our income reduced, we would be forced to compete for grants and other resources with other projects in the town.  In fact the farm would probably just be a drain on already inadequate resources.
• And of absolute necessity, there is currently no night-time security.  The park is totally open all the time.  We have heard enough horror stories from urban farms in similar situations, and thefts from farms (including the butchery of animals in the fields) are all too prevalent.  The grounds would need to be fenced off.

Beyond these reasons, there is the politics of the place.  It was too complicated for us, and from discussions with those involved the full story is yet to be revealed.  Being a rather open and blabbermouthed group, we'd have soon put our foot in it somewhere.


Friends of Groups are set up for one of two reasons: an involved owner happily accepts support – so volunteers help them with events and fund-raising, but the owner drives the project.  Or a neglectful owner needs to be cajoled and pushed into action as they have little imagination or real interest.  One is welcome, one leads to arguments.  Hopefully they're on a different course now.
There'll be no need for a Friends of the farm, because the chance to volunteer is built into it.

We wish the best of luck to all Friends of projects around the town, we know what you're up against, and it's often a thankless task.  Hopefully they'd all agree it would be nice if those who are paid to look after the publics property took it a little more seriously, and saw the value in decent green space rather than only the cost – we live in hope.


Often people become involved in projects, not for what the project can do (for visiting children, adults, or the wider community), but what they can get out of it personally.
We all benefit by being involved in these sorts of projects, but when it is a calculated plan to subtly build a business off the back of the work of other volunteers, and the investment they draw, we're veering into a different world.

Now, there's a lot of scope for separate businesses to sit alongside the farm, in fact the current plan has a couple built in - although no one to run them as of yet – and we also hope it becomes an opportunity for people in Northampton to develop ideas.
So we have no problem with anyone joining us now with the hope of benefiting personally in the future – as long as that intention is made clear, kept in the open, and it's mutually beneficial.
What benefits the project is all that matters, and our rules won't let it be any other way.



Returning to the Abbey then, in the end we suggested – perhaps – we could work with them on a conservation grazing plan – basically consisting of sheep and cows bought in the spring, grazed over the summer, and sold on before winter – but this would still face many of the problems already mentioned.

We pointed them in the direction of Lydiard Park in Swindon as an example of what they should perhaps be aiming for - it might be larger, but the entire park closes at night.
Alternatively, they might like to look at pony-trekking – a bold plan linking various different parks, and grazing paddocks, alongside the river and beyond.  It would require a plan for the entire river length, better overall planning linking green spaces together, and be managed; but it was possible, could be independently profitable, and fit in with their plans on that site and others – including ours.


And our current hopes for a site is what we'll finally discuss next time.