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.
No comments:
Post a Comment