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.

4. Slope

It isn’t just individuals and companies, bent on the purchase of land for profit, that are happy to see viable sites lay unused and derelict.

Hunsbury Hill Farm comprises of the remaining listed buildings owned by Northamptonshire ACRE. They’re a charitable organisation created to aid rural communities and were lucky to be gifted the farm buildings in Northampton on Hunsrbury Hill.
It's a lovely little place.  Many of the attractive farm buildings are still unused – lack of funds mean the listed buildings are hard to adapt. They do hire out the main buildings for weddings etc. though, and it has a fantastic view from the car park as you enter.


As part of the site they also own a large area of woodland, and around an acre of open ground sloping towards the A45. From their own website we knew neither the woodland nor this open land had been maintained recently, and were heavily overgrown. They had received a lottery grant to look into what work might be carried out to use this land, and decided, rather obviously, a path could be built around the buildings.
No work had been carried out on this plan since then.

The place was obviously not of any use to the urban farm plans (far too small, an inconvenient entrance, and for the use of someone else), but we had been looking for a single convenient site to temporarily store our roadshow equipment together.
With limited funds, this hasn’t been easy, and so Hunsbury Hill Farm came onto our radar.

We approached them with an initial offer of mutual aid, emphasising that we hadn’t seen the site so couldn't go into details.

We suggested we would clear the open area of brambles/weeds, sow it with grass seed, and return it to the grazing standard that had been there when it was a farm. We would also create that path they had planned, and repair the boundary fences, gates and hedgerows. This would take two years, during which time we would store our trailer and equipment in the paddock, keep 2/3 goats to eat the debris we were cutting back and use as part of our roadshow, and train our volunteers in necessary skills.

We did not want to bring visitors to the site, but were willing to create an area for their visitors to see the goats if they wanted. There was also the possibility that if the grass was adequate that we would bring in a maximum of three sheep to graze the grass, but this seemed unlikely in the time-frame.
Any animals kept there would be our responsibility, we and our volunteers would be insured at our expense.

We made clear we had no intention of staying beyond two years as we have bigger plans to work on.  It would be more a maintenance agreement than lease.

In total we estimate that our time, effort, and supplies would amount to over a thousand pounds of work during the two years, and they would be left with a paddock for events or to hire out once we left.


We were invited to see the land by the site-management team who seemed keen on the idea - if perhaps a little surprised the state of the land didn't put us off. They were very helpful, going beyond what we intended, and suggesting we use one of the unused out-buildings for storage.

We had a good look at the land to see what was actually possible. Of note was the elder growing from their building that needed to be removed before it brought a wall down, a hedgerow that had been removed by them recently, but would have been legally protected and should be replaced, and the outflow (that the last farmer of the land had told us emerged from under the building) was missing. It may have been blocked and might explain the overflowing duck pond - again this could damage their buildings.
The boundary fence was in need of some repair, and was in fact a danger to the deer we could see evidence of near the woodland, but the overgrown nature of the bulk of the site wouldn’t be a problem – we’d dealt with far worse.

It seemed to us the plans held water - although we could only make suggestions as to what work we could carry out, as they would need to be clear what they would allow or wanted to be left with.

The work would certainly have to begin quickly as the grass would need to be sown a few months before winter, this was July and we were told that their committee were meeting in a few days.  Another proposal would have to be made before then or we would have to wait until September for a decision.
This was a little daunting as it was still very much open ended, but we decided to keep it simple, giving them bullet points of what we had already told them, in the hope detailed decisions might be delegated to the site manager.

The day after their meeting we received the decision of their committee.

No.

They couldn’t allow us to use the site for 'operational, practical, resourcing and technical issues'.

We have no idea what they could be, and at first thought about pursuing it, but on reflection there seems little point. If they were inclined to change their mind they would surely have asked questions to clarify their concerns.

The area we would work was away from all their current plans and operation, we wouldn't have needed to enter their visitor area at all. The amount of work they would receive made this deal a win-win for them it seemed, and they certainly would have benefited long term.


As with all these decisions over land, the owners have a total right to allow their land to be derelict and unused, even land they're lucky to have been gifted. Land they receive grants to look into using.

We have recently been told that they are instrumental in employing an officer that travels the county helping community groups in villages make use of derelict spaces - negotiating with the owners.


We wish the management team we met the best of luck.  And we hope the Northants ACRE committee don't claim expenses for attending meetings - their charity clearly needs money for front-line projects.

[Our directors are not paid, nor will ever be paid.  If they really wanted expenses for something, the members would have to agree to it.]

3. Knot

A large area of forgotten(?) municipal parkland in Northampton was drawn to our attention. We’ll keep this anonymous as well, for reasons that will become clear.

Owned by the council, and relatively unused due to neglect and vandalism, it neither has the equipment nor the accessibility originally intended.
We were quite sure a group of well-meaning people linked with the land would have plans to rejuvenate it, but were also sure they would have little funding or the vision to do much - they had so much else they wanted to do.

This concerned us: first, to take our project there would perhaps mean treading on their toes quite a bit, and second, would almost certainly involve taking them on as partners in the venture. We'd already spoken to them on other matters, and knew their slow-moving pace of committees and meetings would add yet more unnecessary delays.

Also, pinning ourselves to the vagaries of the council and their committees and meetings and delays and political point scoring, was something we've always been careful to avoid.

Added to that, alongside the park was another group with a nominal public attraction and hopes to expand. Again, we had little hope they would ever actually get around to much of what they talked of, and even then their funding was slim on the ground and often directed elsewhere.

Perhaps more importantly, any of the additional sources of income we would need - for example, a café - would impact on their plans and them on ours.
It appeared a joint venture was out of the question because a) we were both going to need to maximise our share of profits to make it worthwhile, and b) we felt their ambition was lacking when it came to a visitors experience - if we have a cafe, it won't be a cheap shed selling crisps.
This would have been all academic though as another café, seeing an obvious need, opened opposite.  A three-way partnership?  Even worse.


If we ignore the cutting-off of possible revenue, the land itself was awful. It had been farmed once, but was now compacted, rough and would be a nightmare to work with.

Beyond that, there were issues over the past vandalism.  Crime, and what we could do to mitigate it, would be an issue - especially with so many, quite rightly, wanting to have a say in the land.
It was theoretically possible to secure the entire site, but what this would look like from the outside concerned us.  And again, we don't have the leeway to negotiate with others over that sort of thing - it's either there or we aren't.

None of the members or volunteers looked on this as a viable site so, although we made a rough plan to see if it would work, we decided to look elsewhere.


This seems like a good moment to wish all of the various groups well, who are trying to improve the green space in the town.  It's a shame when the owners of land need to be cajoled into action - but perhaps this will change in time.

Securty.

We suggested last time that a temporary lease on a small area of land may be workable to begin with. However, such temporary plans make finding funding for the infrastructure very difficult. For the kind of sums needed for the farm project, a 10, 15, or even 25 lease is usually required.

It’s also worth noting that projects that have already begun are often not eligible for substantial grants at all - the funding bodies are more interested in founding projects, not supporting them. Or that's what they say... but we’ll leave the dubious world of grants and funding decisions to another time.

With the need for a more permanent site a definite requirement long-term we move on to our next possible location.


2. Curves

This was a difficult site to consider, and was similar to several others. We’re choosing to leave it anonymous, for reasons that should be clear.

The land itself is flat and nondescript - part registered as grassland worth protecting, although no particular protection or management seemed to take place. The majority had been left to form scrub, although despite the gates and fence it had obviously become a regular walking route for someone.

The area didn’t feel, or look of particular concern, but a quick scan over police reports revealed a different story. A single short cul-de-sac which was open to the site had seen 3 violent crimes and 2 burglaries in one month. There hadn’t in fact been a single month when some sort of criminal damage, burglary, or violent crime hadn’t happened. The wider area wasn’t much better, and the nearby allotments had complained for many years of regular break-ins and damage.

Security would obviously be a serious concern, and there was a possibility our plans may not be welcomed. The much needed fence, hedgerow, etc., would block a currently open view for that troubled cul-de-sac and also stop them accessing the derelict site which gave those shortcuts to other areas.

We learned the land itself had been actively advertised for development for many years (although we saw no evidence of that), but had obviously not attracted any investor despite it being such an easy site to build on.

This was all rather disappointing, as – despite our initial supposition – it did have enough schools within walking distance and those schools were mostly not already served by outdoor activity centres.

A further concern that we had for this, and several other sites, was how urban it actually was. One side currently bounded onto remaining 'farmland' – although not farmed any longer – and this wasn’t what we had in mind when setting up an urban farm. We want to break down the boundary between countryside and urban, bringing food production into the town so everyone can see how their food is produced – there seems little point if a few more steps from visiting us you’ll be in actual countryside. That’s as crazy as creating a new country park on the edge of town, attempting to fake a countryside view right next to the real thing – who would do that?

[see plans for Northamptons expansion to the west]

Which brings us to another concern of our organisation. It’s written in our company articles that we are aiming to bring back into use disused land. We can’t be party to the development of greenfield sites, or the expansion of the town onto viable farmland. Our presence in some areas would actually make such development easier, as we are providing the green space that the developers themselves are supposed to provide and pay for. We would, no doubt, receive some money as a form of compensation (or bribe) to the planners, but that would be difficult for us to accept - money is no replacement for actual public green space.

And that farmland is going to be built on.


This site had/has possibilities, but I've yet to meet anyone who seriously likes the idea of taking it on. There would be a fight to secure its use in the first place, and there would be a constant fight to secure it from crime. We're not deluded to believe we would always be a ripe target for thieves (although they'll be disappointed), but we do think you can, and should, reduce the risk.

With this in mind we returned to the search for land.

1. Sandyford

One of the pieces of land we took a good look at was referred to by us as Sandyford.

The key area of this land lies to the west of Towcester Road, alongside the river and canal. A little investigation found it to be currently owned by Bellway Homes and had been part of the land purchased to build around the Old Towcester Road at Cotton End.
Part left undeveloped included what they referred to as ‘the island’, which lies between the canal and river on the eastern side, but the bulk is to the west of the Towcester Road.

When applying for planning permission this was left as ‘flood attenuation’ to protect the development on the flood plain, and would, they said, be heavily planted with trees and landscaped.

As with most developments, the tree planting and landscaping has been forgotten. Developers move on, or have an eye to the future, those living there would never know what had been promised (buying what they see, not what was on a plan), and, with no one left to pursue it, the over-stretched planning enforcement by the council doesn’t know, or want to know, about it. Besides, if anyone did notice, the developers can claim poverty and walk away (once having sold all the property) or pursue alternative planning permission, renegotiating what was previously a necessity.

The general rule of planning permission tends to be an argument over details that no one will ever concern themselves with later.


This land had two major problems for us. The first, and most important, was the fact it isn’t actually large enough in the long term. It could only be a temporary base and therefore wouldn’t be worth spending a large amount of money on.

Secondly, it floods. There’s no use fighting it, the river has flooded and always will. The Nene used to meander around the wide flood plain splitting and reuniting multiple times around Northampton. The shallow water being an ideal place to cross the river historically, is why Northampton exists at all. Bridge Street outside what is now Carlsberg was a series of small bridges, and previously, Phipps brewery had passages for the river to pass through its site.
Carlsberg moved the river and raised the land it sits on so it would no longer be effected by flooding, but the water has to go somewhere so it backs up onto St James and is pushed out onto Far Cotton instead. It flooded in the late 60’s, it flooded in the early 80’s, it flooded in the late 90’s… and then they built more houses on the flood plain.

Hopefully the new flood defences will work upstream – we’ll find out at some point.
The old National Rivers Authority and Environment Agency have had a mantra of efficiency for natural water courses since the war – water must arrive at the sea as soon as possible. Rivers were straightened, deepened, lined, sluices closed, flood meadows dried, habitats lost, the natural system of flooding and meandering, and rivers actually changing their course over time, was a dead duck. No more ox-bow lakes, geographers. Change is something we seem to struggle with.
Not that controlling nature isn’t fine at times... it's an art that needs considered judgement, not blanket rules.

But we digress. This flooding doesn’t make it impossible to farm – in fact the alluvial salts (and wasted excess nitrates from other farms) are washed down with the water and left on the flooded land making it rich and fertile. The grass will be lush and nutritious, hence why the land nearby was grazed by cows into the 90’s – but it can’t be grazed all through the year.
In winter the soft ground will turn to a quagmire, heavy cattle will churn it up, sheep and goats will inevitably get hoof problems, and when a serious floods comes where do the animals go? And our equipment? And what damage to our infrastructure? Or crops?


So our interest in this site was limited.

However, in the short-term, it might be a starting point. We could limit ourselves to a few activities, building up experience and testing different avenues, while we followed up on our other options.

Making this clear to the owners we envisaged a simple deal, occupying the land for a maximum of 5 years, fencing and clearing it, securing and maintaining the site for that short period, before moving on.

Our contact with Bellway Homes was much shorter.

They seemed surprised we knew they owned the land, but made it clear with terse responses to our enquiries. ‘We have plans to develop the land and are not interested in even a short-term agreement.’

Strange.  Flood land to be developed?  That they're supposed to landscape?

There seemed no point in beginning a protracted argument for something so temporary and slight to us, so we left it at that.


Their attitude is not unusual – whenever you see derelict land it’s rare that the owner doesn’t know its state. They’re mostly just waiting to cash in on it’s development value. Receiving an income in the short-term is of little concern, mainly due to their fear anyone renting the land would fight to stay (an unfounded fear if a clear legal agreement is made at the beginning).


Our interest in the site ceased, and we moved on, but an idea still intrigues some of us. To the west of this site, is more derelict land, which extends to the railway viaduct, and from there parkland - nothing more than an old flood meadow - leads you all the way to Duston Mill. A large stretch of land that reaches all the way into the centre of town. This has been grazed before, and as it’s all liable to flooding, development would be unlikely. And that flooding could perhaps be re-utilised, rebuilding sluice gates and flooding it for a few months a year. And perhaps reopening the old curving course of the river, as lakes at least…

The Bellway Homes land would be key though... and a huge amount of money needed to create access... and some parts would be totally open while others private... and security would be very difficult, unless we had an idea for that... and it would be very complicated to pull together and make into a viable plan... and crops would be risky without yet more investment… but... but, it is intriguing.

Setting up a simple urban farm is perhaps complicated enough.

Meanwhile...

While all that in the last blog post was happening, the strange world of land ownership was occupying us elsewhere.

We won’t linger on most of the sites that drifted through our radar, or where we’ve stored ourselves over the last year. Instead, we’ll highlight a few moments to give you a flavour.
Each location had been given a code name to keep our interest secret while negotiating, we use them as titles for each section, but we see no reason why now you shouldn’t know where most are.


To begin with though, you should understand a few requirements we have for possible sites. There seems like quite a few, but when one is dealt with others usually follow.

• Easy road access. Building roads is an expensive business, and we'd rather not have to do it.
  
• Realistic chance of negotiating land use. In Northampton, with most of it already earmarked and priced, this would usually mean some kind of block to any development, or very high levels of local support.
• It should be within an urban/developed area. There seems little point in providing a small example of a farm to visit when there’s the real deal next door.
• The land should be derelict. Part of our company articles states that we should bring back into use unused sites, so taking on land that was already viable farmland isn’t suitable. Having said that, we might look into expanding on an additional site outside the town later. We certainly would not be interested in taking on land in support of development on viable farmland, nor development unsuitable for Northamptons housing or employment needs.
• The ground shouldn’t be polluted. We’ll need to grow a great deal for sale, and raised agriponicos beds aren’t practical at that scale, with scarce funds.
• The site should be possible to secure. The boundary does need to be sealable, not only to protect from theft, but also if DeFRA include us in an exclusion zone, or there’s a health and safety risk - we have to able to prohibit visitors to the site as we see fit. Also, the risk of dogs running onto the site or near the animals has to be considered.
• There must be at least six and a half acres, mostly comprised of grazing. This is purely so the animals you’d expect to see can graze as you’d expect to see, and also cuts the cost of bought-in feed. Additional land would obviously be welcome to give us more scope and opportunities for side-projects – all of which make the project more financially viable.
• At least one school must be within a 10 minute walk distance. This isn’t written in stone, but a school that can regularly use us as a teaching resource would be of enormous benefit to them, and also to us.
• At least four schools within a mile. This is harder to ignore. Cutting out the cost of transportation to our farm for as many schools as possible will mean they can afford to use us as a regular resource.
• Lack of provision for outdoor learning for those schools. There are several groups offering experiences in parks and on private land around the town, and it would be nice to be in an area lacking in those options nearby.
• A bus service passing nearby, a decent view across the site, and numerous other minor points would be helpful - but they merely add or subtract from the desirability of a site.
  

And so, understanding some of what we need, the next post will venture onto our first possibility…

And we're back.

We promised an update many times over the last few months, and finally it’s here.

Contrary to what some hoped, the Northampton Urban Farm Project survives. No matter how many times we’re told ‘it can’t be done’, we’re yet to be given a reason why it can’t and certainly no reason why it shouldn’t. You only have to see the effect being around the animals has on younger kids to see that it's worthwhile – and that's only the beginning of what we want to do. It will happen if people work towards it.


It’s been a quiet year on the surface, but the year before was perhaps too hectic. Not that we’ve been resting on our laurels, there’s been plenty of work going on behind the scenes, but more of that in coming posts.

The project is now run by a new limited company and is building on the experience gained before and pushing ahead anew.

Over the next few blog posts we’ll review exactly what has been happening, hopefully answer the questions we're always asked, and wipe the slate clean, then we’ll begin a more regular series of posts from the team on farm matters.


We’ll begin then with the site we’ve been most commonly connected with - a derelict 4.4 hectare site behind the houses of Towcester Road in Delapre that we shall refer to as...


1. Evil Twin

The land is owned by an ever lengthening list of people – at least one of those (via an investor) was (and we assume still is) the development company intent on building there.

When it came to the developers, we slowly discovered the land owners were not at all united. And it occurred to us that it wasn’t only those living locally, and future residents, who were being given a poor deal on the proposed development.

Let’s not feel sorry for the owners though, a sudden inherited windfall of any kind isn’t something to complain about.


Some of those owners were adamant we could not use their land, others had indicated they didn’t want us to be there, but allowed and tolerated our events, and others had been willing to talk about us using it.

Interestingly, it was generally those owners with the land of least use to us, and hadn’t touched, that made the most noise.

At the end of the day it is their land, and they can do whatever they want with it within the law, but they can’t tell others what to do with theirs, or expect everyone to just accept their plans. Some might say it’s odd that they’d rather their land was unused and derelict rather than accept an income from renting it, but land is an odd thing.


Some of those owners who reacted unfavourably to the idea of a farm, adamant the site must be built on, came as a surprise – parish councillors, leading members of environmental groups, people living nearby… but I’m sure they had their reasons, and can explain if someone should ask.


Councillors quietly meeting the developers, or knowing them personally, or having a financial interest all emerged, but another local group led the fight against the poorly designed development, and they know more about that than we do.

[The residents of Buckingham Fields are still monitoring the situation, but it is understood planning permission has still not been formally granted, that the highway requirement has not been met, and that the WNDC have not corrected their decision to ignore planning law.]


There was one current councillor who declared he didn’t support the farm as it would ‘ruin plans’, but perhaps his colleague was right, and he did support us really.

We’ve been adamant from the very beginning that we will keep all politics at arms length – even adding a caveat to the company articles forbidding anyone being a member who is elected, or standing for election, to a public body. We’ll talk to anyone, we welcome their support, but we’re not here to be used.


Despite some agreement on its use, our tenure on the land would be difficult. We kept an interest, did what we could, removed huge amounts of dumped rubbish from the site, recorded where the hazardous material was, made some additions, and of course held very limited free events.
That the developer had not secured all the land, yet needed it all, gave everyone a glimmer of hope. It was worth looking into, and we learned much as we tinkered with the possibilities.

The land yet to be secured came in three packages. There was a family holding out for a better deal (who would sign when it was offered), land the developers had hoped no one would notice (which they hadn’t tracked down the owner of), and the only remaining family to use the land (who were not united in their opinion of what to do.)


With no other owner tending to the land for 20 years, one had grown used to grazing horses wherever they chose. This was necessary as they only owned a little over an acre, but had several horses and other animals.

The other owners didn’t like this, but the simple fact is, while all of them make a lot of noise, none of them are willing to take the action necessary to solve their problems.

Concerns were voiced about the conditions of the animals kept there and their motives by some, but we worked together with them as preliminary plans for the farm were made.

After an initial flurry of activity, progress ground to a halt and a protracted period of stalemate was reached over the site. With little we could do, meetings became scarce as we reorganised, and tasks were delegated.


After the summer, eager to regain momentum, it was agreed we would look again for alternative sites, temporary if necessary. It would be totally irresponsible to keep animals with no lease on the land, yet animals were the obvious next step.

Various options arose (which we’ll explain later) and other schemes to secure much of this site were tried. It seemed on the surface as if we were getting somewhere, and we even looked into purchasing some sheep, however the situation was actually about to take a sudden turn for the worse.


We first learned that our emergency option to keep the sheep on was no longer available, and our planned location wouldn’t be ready in time. Meanwhile, negotiations about a temporary site were abruptly cut off. We were now stuck, unhappily, on this Evil Twin site, with little option but to grind everything to a halt again.



Small items had been going missing over the time we were there, a large box of nails, occasional eggs, etc. but we let them slide.

We mentioned this on the blog before, but removed the sections on thefts as one reader took offence - assuming everyone would think it was her – accompanying the request to remove it with a threat to stab our then farm manager.

There had also been threats made to visitors when we held our events, the police attending on one occasion, but we brushed it aside as a clash of personalities.

But these were warning signs.


Shortly after our last event a number of chickens were found dead, and didn't show obvious signs of an animal attack. One was found barely alive in the coop with broken thigh bones, and internal injuries - an ex-chicken farmer thought it had been stamped on. As it couldn’t stand, for it to have crawled unaided into the coop would have been difficult.


It was decided by the members to cease our permanent interest in the land and concentrate on one possible alternative location. We moved to a more discrete part of the site to limit any friction and prepare to leave, but apparently this didn’t help.

When we eventually began to remove our equipment from the site we were threatened and warned to stay away. We then found the locks to the gates changed, making them the only ones able to access the site in vehicles. It was a month later before we could re-enter (through means other than the gates) where we found over £600 of equipment had been stolen.

This was reported to the police who spoke to witnesses. The theft had taken place during the day and one witness statement said a white flat-bed truck had driven onto the site, describing the man who led them to our equipment to be loaded up and taken away - the description was clear who this was.

Since then, more of our charities possessions have been taken, and visiting land-owners have been threatened and had arguments.

The police know the situation, and there will be investigations in the future on other matters related to the site, and what has been done, and still being done there. But this is all out of our hands and no longer our concern.

As a new limited company taking on the Northampton Urban Farm Project from the previous group, we do still have an interest in the site, and property on it – but that’s a story for another day, and for now, we have other plans to work on.


At one point we almost, accidentally, employed the legal team of another party involved in the land. They apologised for the mix-up, and we’ll let them have the final words for this chapter of the saga – ‘The only problem you’ll have with that land are the owners.’