Community Land Bank Consultation

16 December 2009

Executive Summary, Conclusion and next steps

From JEREMY ILES, FCFCG

Community gardening and interest in food growing in the UK is growing and land demand for this purpose is exceeding supply: allotment waiting lists with local authorities are in many places at record highs, and in other places groups are negotiating individual deals for land with a variety of landlords. Waiting lists nationally for allotments are reported to be in the region of 100,000 with a ten year wait for a plot in Poole and a seven year wait in Edinburgh.

Community-managed gardens and farms make a major contribution to the quality of life locally in relation to a broad range of social and environmental objectives. Green space, bio-diversity, exercise, community cohesion, mental health, education, the welfare of older people and carbon reduction all have resonances within community gardening activities.

The Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (FCFCG) has commissioned this research  to examine whether a Community Land Bank (CLB) could be established as a social enterprise to address the burgeoning demand for access to space for local food growing and for the development and furtherance of community gardening generally. The proposition is that a Community Land Bank would be situated in the “non-statutory” and community sector.  This involves land not protected by the Allotment Acts and would involve gardening under a very different set of rules than those applying to local authority allotments.

The strategic objective for a CLB would be a net increase in the land available for gardening and a contribution to addressing increased demand.  The assumption is that there is a potential supply in the form of land under the management of a variety of landowners (some of which may be awaiting development in some form) which could be made available for gardening until it is time for it to go forward for its designated use. From FCFCG’s consultation with a range of expert bodies, the indicative objectives identified for a CLB are:

• To act as a formal brokerage between land-holders and community groups
• To hold land in trust if appropriate
• To offer objective advice to landowners and tenants over purchase, sale or lease of land, and suitable legal structures for community ownership
• To offer (for leased sites) security to landowners and tenants over length of tenancies and return of land in good condition at the end of the lease period
• Potentially to reduce tenure costs as a consequence of scale, standardised agreements, etc, and to secure a central fund/endowment from which costs might be covered
• To offer case studies to reassure prospective landowners, as a model for their own negotiations
• To offer some protection to community land – as community farms and gardens have no protection compared to local nature reserves or statutory allotments.
• Potentially to offer umbrella liability insurance for small groups to help them become established and cover their legal responsibilities.

The research included interviews with a diverse range of organisations including bodies supporting community gardening groups and those that might provide land on a temporary or longer term basis. Strong interest in the CLB proposition was obtained from public and voluntary sector organisations. Concern was expressed about the lack of security of tenure but, on the other hand, the potential innovation that a CLB could provide was appreciated. Key findings from the interviews are as follows:

1. Demand for space to grow food and for gardening generally exceeds supply by a considerable margin, but this is hard to quantify.
2. The source of the demand is diverse, socially, economically, ethnically and demographically.
3. Whether demand will be sustained, or grow, is more difficult to predict as past experience indicates periodic fluctuations.
4. The economic situation, and the likelihood of high unemployment over the next several years, may also be factors tending to push demand up as it has in the past.
5. An ageing population, especially if pensions fail to recover from the financial crisis, is likely to be attracted to community gardening.
6. Suppliers of land would require the comfort of knowing that the land was well-managed at the local level as well as centrally.
7. Some interviewees indicated that they may be able to contribute a site; anecdotally, schools, the NHS, some local authorities, some Registered Social Landlords, some farmers in the Green Belt, some garden centres and potentially Network Rail and the Co-operative Group would appear likely to take a positive stance and are indicative of the types of organisation that both have land and would have an interest in an intermediary management body like a Community Land Bank.
8. Corporate sector landlords were reluctant to be interviewed so it was not possible to gauge their views in this study.
9. Public sector suppliers of land and social landlords are likely to stipulate that its use, in part at least, support the organisation’s objectives (for example, health or education or community cohesion) and would be unlikely to release land, even temporarily, for purely private use.
10. There was a firm consensus that a Community Land Bank would have a useful role in mediating between the suppliers and users of meanwhile land, and that an organisation capable of ensuring that robust leases were available and that management issues would be dealt with would facilitate the release of land.
11. Affordability is an issue as it is unlikely that revenue streams from the gardening community will be sufficient to cover all or most of the operational costs.  On the other hand, where gardening activity has the effect of improving the site and preserving or enhancing its value, it is fair to assume that the landowner should at the very least cover the cost of the overhead.
12. To be successful and operationally viable, a CLB will need to develop partnerships with other agencies in order to secure funding and/or land through a contribution, albeit indirect, to the delivery of other services or ecological, environmental, community and social benefits.
13. There is significant interest and support for a Community Land Bank as an agency to support access to unused land for meanwhile gardening, both from potential providers of land and other resources and from prospective users.
14. The idea of meanwhile gardening as a form of access to land would be broadly welcomed, so long as it is not perceived as a substitute for optimising access to land on a more permanent basis.
15. There appear to be three types of land that could be secured and managed by a CLB: short-life, temporary uses of land that could be used for learner sites; somewhat longer, medium term sites from public sector sources (like the NHS); and possibly long-term sites by bodies seeking a manager for unused land (like Sustrans).

A feasibility study and business plan is recommended to develop the CLB concept in more detail in relation to legal structure and governance and its initial staffing and operational systems. Such a study would need to be conducted in relation to specific sites that could be considered for commencing operations from mid 2010.

9.   Conclusion and next steps

It was already apparent from the feedback in the first stage of this study that the nature of the interest in community and allotment gardening varies considerably.  For many, it is simply a personal interest in and enjoyment of gardening; for others, it is an environmental imperative; there are also underlying social policy aspects relating to public health, social cohesion, education and regeneration.

Those issues are as relevant to the suppliers of land as to the gardeners themselves and have implications for access to and the availability of land on a temporary as much as on a permanent basis.  Suppliers of land in the public sector may thus stipulate that its use, in part at least, support the organisation’s objectives (for example, health or education).  From the interviews conducted at this stage, it appears that public sector bodies and social landlords would be unlikely to release land, even temporarily, for purely private use. Private sector developers were reluctant to be interviewed so it was not possible to gauge in this study their views, despite repeated requests for interviews.

There was a firm consensus in the interviews and the focus group that a Community Land Bank would have a useful role in mediating between the suppliers and users of meanwhile land, and that an organisation capable of ensuring that robust leases were available and that management issues would be dealt with would facilitate the release of land.  Suppliers of land would require the comfort of knowing that the land was well-managed at the local level as well as centrally.  Organisations willing to supply land may well want to ensure that their own involvement in terms of other resources be minimal.

It was apparent from the interviews that the majority of funding for the activities of the CLB is unlikely to be forthcoming from suppliers of land.  Their reticence is to be expected at this stage but, in the current climate, financial support or contributions in the form of other resources are likely to be fairly limited and increasingly difficult to come by.  That is not to say that such contributions will not be significant, merely that they are unlikely to suffice to meet the operational overheads of a Community Land Bank.

Detailed business planning is needed to establish whether revenue streams from the gardening community will be sufficient to cover all or most of the cost.  Other sources of funding may be available where additional benefits arise from the gardening activity, and where it has the effect of improving the site and preserving or enhancing its value, it is fair to assume that the landowner should at the very least cover the cost of the overhead.

The CLB will undoubtedly need to consider partnerships with other agencies in order to secure funding and/or land through a contribution, albeit indirect, to the delivery of other services or ecological, environmental, community and social benefits.  At the same time, the CLB must ensure that its own mission is kept on course, and avoid being co-opted into marketing campaigns or other purposes with which it may not wish to be associated.  There must therefore be careful consideration of and clarity about the CLB’s own underlying purposes and rationale.

It is clear, therefore, that there is significant interest and support for a Community Land Bank as an agency to support access to unused land for meanwhile gardening, both from potential providers of land and other resources and from prospective users. Strong support has been expressed by groups leading innovation in the field including Capital Growth, Landshare and Sustrans. Partnership working between these bodies, FCFCG and other stakeholders could drive forward the development of the Community Land Bank in 2010.

More detailed feasibility work and business planning will be required to provide clear-cut guidance on implementation work from spring 2010. The following tasks are indicative of key elements required for this next phase of development:

(i)                 Define the corporate mission, strategic objectives, powers and governance of a Community Land Bank and in this context clarify the relationship between the CLB itself, the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens and other founding stakeholder members.

(ii)               Identify a suitable membership and legal structure for fulfilling the agreed objectives and mission of a Community Land Bank with guidance from other relevant precedents in the UK and possibly with reference to federal models internationally.

(iii)              Identify potential sources of revenue funding, investment and other resources to establish a pilot phase of operations.

(iv)            From stakeholder founder members, identify existing and potential sources and locations of land and set out detailed guidance on how to initiate the operational work with reference to these specific sites.

(v)             Design the process of site identification, identification of management requirements, any design requirements and costs, methods of member recruitment, and carry out fieldwork as required.

(vi)            Develop model constitutions for the local gardener and memberships associations to enable these bodies to be formed to contract with the CLB.

(vii)          Identify and/or obtain model leases and sub-leases for the CLB to use during the pilot phase of operations from Year 1.

(viii)         Develop a full business plan for the CLB including: market appraisal, membership targets,  the staffing and operational structure (including sub-contractor and agency requirements), promotional costings, investment requirements, identifiable revenue streams, fixed and variable expenditure including insurance requirements, five-year financial projections and balance sheet.

(ix)             Test the CLB business model with key stakeholders including the providers of the land, local authority representatives, local gardener associations and other support and advisory organisations.

(From the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens web site:  http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/)

Share

Hide Sites