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.'
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment