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.]
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Monday, 10 October 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, 8 October 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
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.
And so, understanding some of what we need, the next post will venture onto our first possibility…
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…
Sunday, 2 October 2011
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.’
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.’
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)