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.