The potential of urban agriculture in peterborough by Tracy Chang

The Potential Of

Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

BENVGSU8 Governance for Urban Sustainability: Project Prof. Yvonne Rydin 2014-2015 Benedict Arkhurst Yun-Tsui Chang Asia La Chapelle-Williams Aiden Marshall Duncan McKane Heleen Van Hecke John Wilkinson

2 Â

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Contents 1. Introduction

p. 2

2. Case Studies and Best Practice Literature Review

p. 4

2.1. Introduction 2.2. Typology of Urban Agriculture 2.3. Individual Urban Agriculture 2.4. Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture 2.5. Institutional Urban Agriculture 2.6. Overarching Findings

Methodology

p. 14

Stakeholder Engagement: Mapping, Findings, and Analysis

p. 17

4.1. Introduction 4.2. Individual Growing Type 4.3. Entrepreneurial Type 4.4. Institutional Type 4.5. Conclusion

Policy Recommendations

p. 27

5.1. Overarching recommendations 5.2. Individual Growing Type 5.3. Entrepreneurial Type 5.4. Institutional Type 5.5. Methods of Delivery 5.6. Stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Future Support Network

6. 7. 8. 9.

Concluding Remarks Specific Output Bibliography Appenices 8.1. List of Abbreviations 8.2. List of Figures 8.3. List of Tables 8.3. Questionnaire for Individual Growers

p. 40 p. 42 p. 44 p. 48

Introduction

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

1. Introduction As a part of its ‘Environmental Capital Action Plan’, Peterborough City Council (PCC) has challenged itself to ensure that 80% of food consumed in the city is produced and processed within 100 miles by 2050. To help achieve this, Peterborough will have to embrace urban agriculture (UA), requiring a collaborative and multifaceted approach supporting a variety of different kinds of actors. This report will explore further the details required for this approach and make policy recommendations specific to the city to help realise this target. Peterborough’s proximity to London – and more broadly within the ‘Greater South East’ commuter zone - has meant that urban land has become highly valuable. If UA is to take off in Peterborough an approach which acknowledges and addresses the difficulties with land value and scarcity will be needed. Whilst still very much in its early stages, there is real potential for UA to develop in Peterborough. In 1996 PCC created independent charity Peterborough Environmental City Trust (PECT) in order to help deliver projects aimed at creating a more sustainable and healthy urban environment, thus installing an institution that can provide knowledge for and support start-ups involved in urban growing. The city also benefits from a healthy allotment community and a small but growing network of charities, social enterprises and institutions willing to develop UA in all its forms. Within this report we explore this nascent movement within Peterborough and compare it to a range of case studies and best practice literature. We then propose some recommendations that we hope will create an environment that enables and encourages people to engage more in UA.

Case Studies and Best Practice Literature

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

2. Case Studies And Best Practice Literature Review 2.1. Introduction In order to make meaningful recommendations it is important to understand the motivations and dynamics driving forward urban agriculture. The purpose of this literature review is to explore these conditions through case studies and establish a theoretical underpinning to the proposed recommendations. The review has taken a variety of media from academic sources, newspapers and website publications from our chosen case studies. The case studies themselves are taken from a variety of places, including the United Kingdom, the developed world and a few from the developing world. Through the exploration of case studies, we developed a typology which forms the backbone of the report. We found that in general UA is more prevalent in developing countries, while most widespread in cities in the developed world that have either undergone a decline, or have other prevailing socio-economic conditions which encourage UA activities e.g. Detroit and Russia (Detroit see Mogk et al, 2010; Russia see Nugent, 2000). While Peterborough has its own unique set of conditions, these examples offer a global context pertinent to establishing recommendations to cover a large range of motivations and types to increase the efficacy of UA for the city. Within this review we will first describe the ideal ‘types’ which from our typology of UA, exploring how each can contribute to Peterborough’s goals, and paying close attention to wider challenges; secondly, we explore a selection of case studies demonstrating the ideal types working in practice; finally, we look at recommendations made within the literature to promote UA through policy measures.

2.2. Typology of Urban Agriculture The ideal types we identified are: entrepreneurial, institutional, and individual (see fig 1). As the primary objective of this project is to develop a set of recommendations around the drivers, barriers, opportunities and challenges for urban agriculture in Peterborough, the use of the typology enables an exploration of the topic from a variety of angles. The ‘types’ also serve as subject headings or ‘themes’ for our policy recommendations. The different types are not mutually exclusive, and there are many areas of crossover. The

7 Â

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

intention is that the types work in tandem with each other to support the 80% local food consumption goal; each type has something to offer. The great potential of linking together different urban agricultural activities and of fostering the involvement of multiple actors is highlighted as the most important policy objective for a municipal government promoting UA (Mougeot, 2006).

Overarching

Individual

Local food growing in gardens, allotments or other less formal growing spaces.

Enterprise

Any growing activity which involves selling for profit or for social aims (i.e. Social Enterprises)

Relates to all growing projects and activities

Institutional

Growing taking place on sites allocated within grounds of institutions such as schools, hospitals etc.

Figure 1 Diagrammatic representation of UA typology

2.3. Individual Urban Agriculture Individual urban agriculture here refers to the cultivation of allotments, gardens, and other small-scale non-commercial food growing activities. This broad definition includes growing small amounts of salad leaves and herbs in pots through to well-managed allotment plots with seasonal multi-crop growing cycles. Individual allotments are the most predominant form of UA in the UK (Perez-Vazquez et al, 2005) and this is reflected in Peterborough: an estimated 6.7% (36 km2) of city space is currently allocated for this purpose1. Allotments represent an important part of UA, and are therefore likely to remain dominant in terms of space allocation in any future scenario. Historically they have played an important role in fostering a wider understanding of food 1

Calculated using the estimated 1450 plots in Peterborough with an average size of 250m2 (AMEY)

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

production and have periodically been an important part of the food supply to the UK - as in the 1940s-1970s (Perez-Vazquez et al, 2005). Studies suggest that the motivations for keeping allotments range from recreation and exercise, to economic reasons (Mougeot, 2005). The latter features most prominently in the literature: Mougeot suggested that while many people view allotments as economically viable in smaller cities and towns (51%), the biggest economic drawback encountered mainly by those in London - was travel time to the plot (2005). Nugent’s research into the impact of UA around the world saw production for home consumption, income enhancement, mitigation of economic crises and high market prices of food as the overriding motivating factors for urban agriculture (2000). Food is the third highest cost to a single UK adult (outside of London), and an area where most budgetary manoeuvre can be made to accommodate rising costs of rent and socio-cultural participation (CRSP, 2014).

Best Practice

“The Allotment Barge” Hackney (C.H.U.G) – providing space for growing in built up urban area

“Micro Allotments”, Hoxton (Vacant Lot Garden Group)

Figure 2 Individual Growing case studies

Other authors have termed those participating in this type of UA as “subsistence home urban farmers” - able to access better quality and lower cost food than is available to purchase (Gerstl in Veenhuizen, 2006: 176). The dependence on subsistence UA is more common in the developing world, but in the UK examples do exist where it is used to supplement food purchases to save on outgoings (Vazquez et al, 2005). Whilst interest in allotment growing is on the rise nationally, supply has not been able to keep pace with demand. Hope and Ellis (2009) recommend that LAs explore innovative and creative methods for providing plots in places with high demand for them – especially in urban centres - beyond traditional means of allotment allocation which require large tracts of valuable Greenland (see figs 2 and 20 for an example of just such an approach).

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Drivers • •

Barriers Allotment gardening is well established in UK Many benefits of allotment gardening recognised

Opportunities •

•

• •

Provision of allotment facilities not meeting demand nationally Lifestyle constraints

Challenges

Creative and innovative ways to increase number and quality of available plots Stimulation of interest and improvement of allotment supply will increase UA activity and further engage people with local food production

• •

Increasing urban land values and development pressures Lack of knowledge and capacity

Table 1 Summary of Individual Growing literature

2.4. Entrepreneurial Agriculture

Urban

This ideal type refers to food growing, small or large-scale, which includes some form of commercial activity. This takes in commercial farms, but also small allotment growers selling surplus crops. Monetary reward can provide the motivation for smallscale UA growers to use their land to the greatest potential. There are natural advantages for urban growers; urban growing has been noted for its ability to maintain soil quality compared to conventional agricultural practices (Edmonson et al, 2014), and evidence suggests that smaller farms are capable of 2 to 10 times greater output per hectare than large ones (Rossett, 1999). Small farmsteads have given economic boosts to depressed regions in the global south, turning idle land into productive land,

Best Practice

“HK Farm” Hong Kong rooftop farm growing fruits, vegetables and cultivating honey

“Growing Underground” – disused TfL tunnel used for growing salads for use in restaurants Figure 3 Entrepreneurial case studies

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

buying input materials from the local economy, and selling produce in local towns (Rossett, 1999). Their potential in industrialised countries is also great: UA has been a catalyst for economic development in vulnerable urban populations (Duchemin et al, 2009); in Singapore, 80% of poultry and 25% of vegetables are produced within the city, while in the USA 30% of agricultural products consumed are produced in the city (Smit et al, 1999). The USA-figure was achieved largely without any network or guidance system to assist urban growing initiatives in their endeavour (Kaufman and Bailkey, 2000). Entrepreneurial initiatives can also take the form of social enterprises, which provide educational or community services, supplemented by income from food sales. Inevitable difficulties for non-profit initiatives lie within securing tenure over land for cultivation (Kaufman and Bailkey, 2000), although this has also been highlighted as a barrier for individual UA. Indeed, exposure to markets can have a detrimental impact upon any UA initiative (Kirschbaum, 1998). Maintaining security over productive land to cultivate is vital to the survival of schemes. Additionally, it has been suggested that UA initiatives are subject to the same barriers inhibiting optimal function of the free market: “lack of knowledge; large entry and exit costs related to investment and financing; lack of information on price and quality; ignorance of risks and uncertainties; and lack of official monitoring and control” (Lagerkvist, 2014: 9). These factors need to be mitigated to enable the success of enterprise-based UA initiatives.

Drivers • •

Incentives to grow Economically sustainable

Opportunities • • •

Employment, training and economic outputs Stable food supply when there is a demand Encourages to take up UA

Barriers •

Same problems as any other free market enterprise

Challenges • •

Land insecurity Lack of understanding about enterprise in UK associated with middle class

Table 2 Summary of Entrepreneurial Growing literature

2.5. Institutional Urban Agriculture Institutional urban agriculture refers to any form of UA which is educational and community focused, often taking place within the context of a wider institutional organisation: e.g. a school growing patch or an urban foraging organisation. They provide opportunities for people to learn about the possibilities of growing, seasonal growing, and native species.

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Best Practice

“Phoenix School Farm”, Hammersmith - cultivates over 40 varieties of vegetables and herbs.

“Gardening for Health”, Totnes provide weekly fr ee g ar de n se s sio ns with an expert garden tutor.

Figure 4 Institutional case studies

Drivers • •

• •

Lack of knowledge is highlighted as a barrier for the entrepreneurial type, and this is where institutional initiatives can play a role. In addition to education, public health provides a strong motivational factor for setting up urban agriculture within institutional settings. Cultivation of what are termed ‘Healing Gardens’ features frequently in public health recommendations (Bellows et al, 2003), growing in importance in community care provision (Ferris et al, 2001).

Barriers Land ownership Educational and health benefits

Opportunities • •

The benefits of such types of UA are many and varied. School based gardens have been linked to greater academic performance, and a wider appreciation of vegetables amongst children, including a willingness to try new vegetables leading to greater overall vegetable consumption (Ratcliffe et al, 2011). There is limited research into whether children given educational experience in school gardens go on to be more receptive to food growing as adults, but this has been speculated upon (Kirschbaum, 2000).

Stable supply of healthy food Interaction with surrounding communities to improve public health Provision of knowledge and expertise Passing habit of urban agriculture onto next generations

Table 3. Summary for Institutional Growing

•

Not embedded in institutional practice

Challenges •

Lack of funding

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

2.6. Overarching Findings Figure 5 (below) summarises the main points from this section. Our findings informed our methodology going forward and provided context for our stakeholder mapping and engagement.

[Drivers] • •

• •

•

[Barriers] Economical, social, health and educational benefits Allotment growing is generally well-established in the UK and can facilitate other types of growing

Healthy, stable food supply Passing on of knowledge and training can encourage others to engage with urban farming Many creative and innovative solutions to supplying land exist

[Opportunities] Figure 5. Summary of findings from literature review

• •

•

Lack of funding and resources available Lifestyle constraints and perceptions impede engagement

Land issues due to development pressure Need to overcome lack of specialised knowledge and capacity Lack of understanding about enterprises and the association of UA as ‘middle-class activity’ can hinder wider take-up

[Challenges]

Methodology

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

3. Methodology To provide structure to our research, we have used the typology outlined above (fig.1) as a framework. This allowed us to approach a variety of actors participating in a range of activities equally and without prejudice, while remaining mindful of potential overlaps. We divided into three corresponding sub-groups and began scoping and mapping existing initiatives in the city and identifying individuals with whom we could engage. We carried out qualitative interviews in person, via email and by telephone, seeking to understand each initiative and stimulate reflection on obstacles, successes, and a vision of future development. For the individual growing type we predominantly interviewed representatives of individual allotment sites contacted with help from AMEY’s ‘Streetcare Team’. Those engaging in growing in private gardens were not included in our research as it was felt this group was too difficult to engage with adequately in the time allowed. For enterprise initiatives we interviewed PECT and several other (social) enterprises. The presence of current institutional UA initiatives is, compared to representatives from the other types, rather scarce in Peterborough, however two interesting cases were identified (see fig.6). To conduct the interviews we utilised questionnaires (see Appendices 8.4-6) and encouraged a discursive exchange to allow interviewees to raise points that we may not have considered. We were cautious not to lead interviewees in these less formal exchanges.

Representatives Individual growing type (4): • Allotment site representatives: o Muskham Bretton South allotments o North Bretton allotments o Weslyan Rd. allotments o Orton Malbourne allotments • Peterborough Allotment Consortium (PAC) Enterprise type (5): • PECT (not-for-profit) • Local Roots • Big Barn • Groundworks • The Green BackYard Institutional type (2): • Peterborough Museum • Stanground Academy

Figure 6. List of representatives interviewed

Each sub-group then shared their findings and as a group we identified synergies and divergences between the types, before returning to the case studies and literature. In particular we identified areas in which PCC could provide support and foster the potential for collaboration between various initiatives by improving linkages between them.

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Other Initiatives/Actors • • •

•

Peterborough in Transition AMEY Peterborough Farmer’s Market and stallholders at the Local Market Olive Branch Community Orchard

Figure 7. List of further stakeholders and initiatives (not interviewed)

15 Subsequently, we developed type-specific and overarching recommendations for PCC to consider in promoting UA in the city. The recommendations complement existing tools (e.g. Peterborough DNA) and aim to resolve issues and enhance potential benefits. They were then optimised and adjusted through dialogue with PCC, before inclusion in this report. Finally, specific outputs were generated, including several options for delivery methods, and a succinct set of recommendations for use in stakeholder engagement (see p.42).

We decided to focus our investigation into fruit and vegetable growing, and have left out various other types of UA, such as the rearing of livestock, community orchards and beekeeping. This was largely due to time constraints, and complications associated with some of these types. Productive farmland on the urban fringe, or ‘peri-urban agriculture’, was not included in our study; the opportunities and challenges pertaining to this form of agriculture were thought too broad to be covered satisfactorily within the remit of this study. However, these areas do offer real potential, and we recommend that the potential of peri-urban agriculture form the basis of a future study.

Stakeholder Engagement

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

4. Stakeholder Engagment: Mapping, Findings And Analysis 4.1. Introduction This chapter presents and analyses the ‘key players’ involved in UA in Peterborough from each of the three types identified. Figure 8 shows the spatial distribution of UA initiatives in the city. Although some initiatives are based outside of the city, their business models involve extensive interaction with Peterborough’s population.

4.2. Individual Growing ‘Type’ The actors within Figure 8. Map showing UA representatives and initiatives engaged with this type of UA are typically involved in growing food for their consumption through allotment gardens. Surplus is often donated to friends, families and - occasionally - to charity. It was decided to interview several site representatives as an important part of their role involves supporting plot-holders and representing their interests to PCC and AMEY.

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

We interviewed 4 site reps in total (fig 9), including one rep who is also involved in the Peterborough Allotment Consortium (PAC). Representatives expressed an interest in contributing ideas and a desire to collaborate with PCC to create a network with other growers.

Allotment Site Reps

Figure 9 representative Peterborough allotment images from ‘EnterprosePeterborough’ website

We interviewed allotment site reps for: •

South Bretton

•

Stirling Way

•

Weslyan Way (also member of PAC)

•

Malbourne Way

Figure 9. Allotment Site Reps

Findings Table 4 gives a summary of the drivers, barriers, opportunities and challenges identified through our engagement:

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough [Drivers] • Individuals with well established networks (e.g. PAC) and information on growing that are active. • Some are willing to share plot space with organisations such as social enterprises, charities, schools as well as individuals. • Strong sentiments around ‘self-help’ and ‘self-reliance’, but also a healthy culture of mutual support around sharing of knowledge and exchange of goods and materials. • Many different socioeconomic groups engage in allotment growing encouraging them to mix. [Barriers] • Insecurities exist around lack of tenure, due to decline of allotment land in the past. • Incidents of crime and ongoing security of sites an issue for most. • South of Peterborough has been identified as less fertile / having clay-based soil prone to waterlogging and therefore plots require more experienced growers and a higher level of support for new growers. • High turnover rate due to inexperienced ‘newcomers’ overwhelmed by the work required to tend a plot. [Opportunities] • Experienced growers from diverse backgrounds as informal educators or local experts on growing a variety of produce. • Means of meeting wider policy objectives as it promotes health and fitness, community interaction and increases wellbeing of participants. • Economic factors also important, e.g. by reducing outgoings spent on food. • Many are keen to exchange surplus with other growers for free; some are already trying to find local organisations/charities to donate surpluses. [Challenges] • On going development increasingly seen to limit the availability of land allocated for allotments. • Lack of uptake by younger people due to perceptual issues. • Lack of broader knowledge-sharing to enable a sustained increase in uptake of sites; few innovative schemes engaging new individuals. • Fear that publicity around allotments could risk exposing current plot holders to an increase in theft and vandalism. • Whilst good connections exist between plot holders on and across sites, between site representatives and Amey/PCC, few sustained connections exist with other groups involved in UA.

Table 4. Analysis of findings from Individual Growing engagement

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

4.3. Entrepreneurial ‘Type’ For the entrepreneurial type we contacted and interviewed a broad range of organisations, finding a small network of non-profit social enterprises and growers keen to collaborate to increase the profile of UA in Peterborough.

Type Representatives Peterborough Environmental City Trust (PECT) is a not-for-profit organisation that manages a community engagement program which runs cooking and food growing workshops (fig.10). We also spoke to Groundwork, who have a regional office in Cambridge, but do not currently run UA programmes in Peterborough. However, they have run employment and training-based schemes with Cross Key Homes and are open to working with other organisations around UA.

Peterborough Environment City Trust

Start Year: 2011

Manager: PECT

Product: Food crops

Consumer: Community

Purpose: Social

Challenge: Funding Opportunity: Training

Big Barn, a social enterprise based in Bedfordshire, runs a website where growers can market and sell produce. Figure 10 They also have a programme called ‘Crop for the Shop’ allowing individuals to drop surplus off at participating retailers, e.g. Moor Farm Farm Shop, who sell it for them. Additionally, the Big Barn website hosts a stakeholder map which can be magnified to show Peterborough. Big Barn would be happy for the council and organisations to contribute to and host it on their websites. Local Roots (fig. 11) is an enterprise set up by Gloria McNeil and, former PECT employee, Ian Tennant. Currently in their first growing season, they operate polytunnels and outdoor beds. Unable to find a space within the city, Local Roots chose this site in the hinterland of Peterborough. They decided to predominantly grow salad leaves for local restaurants. They have worked with horticulture, land, and estate management students from Peterborough

21 Â

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough Regional College, and are interested in collaborating with social enterprises.

Lastly, there is The Green Backyard (fig. 12), an entirely volunteer run social enterprise. Disputes over their lease highlight the contentious issue of land in the city. The Green Backyard remains a very popular organisation within the ci tyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s UA scene.

Local Roots

Start Year: 2014 Product: Veg & Herbs Purpose: Entrepreneurial

Manager: Ian Tennant & Gloria McNeil Consumer: Community Challenge: Funding Opportunity: Expansion

Figure. 11

The Green Backyard

Start Year: 2009 Size of land: 3 acres Product: Food crops Purpose: Social

Figure. 12

Manager: 13 Volunteers Consumer: Staff & family Challenge: Funding Opportunity: Safe open space

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Findings Table 5 gives a summary of the drivers, barriers, opportunities and challenges identified through our engagement:

[Drivers] • Good linkage amongst social enterprises and not-for-profits working in Peterborough and among other actors such as Big Barn and Local Roots. • Different organisations have different levels of knowledge and experience; o Groundwork: training young people for landscaping projects o PECT: familiar with Peterborough and running project ‘Love Local’ o Local Roots: worked with horticulture students who contributed to their expertise and gained work experience. • Obvious profits from growing and selling. [Barriers] • Linkages are very informal; need a mechanism to improve knowledge exchange and enable groups to find space for growing • Small and energetic group of advocates in Peterborough keen to get UA off the ground, however PECT acknowledged the difficulty of getting people engaged through for instance ‘Love Local’ • Currently, poor choices for consumers wishing to eat local produce. [Opportunities] • Using knowledge, networking and expertise of stakeholders to enable projects to get off the ground. • Improving social capital, opening up links to deprived communities, and creating job and training opportunities. [Challenges] • People grow attached to land they have grown on and so if land is available for only a short time one must be conscious of potential claims when short term agreements come to an end. • Issue of land availability for growing in the city. Overcoming it may include looking to the city’s hinterland for space or using novel spaces for growing. Table 5. Analysis of findings from Entrepreneurial Growing engagement

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

4.4. Institutional ‘Type’

Stanground Academy

Here we discuss institutions in Peterborough that currently engage in UA. At the moment only two do so; Stanground Academy (fig. 13) and Peterborough Museum (fig. 14).

Type Representatives Stanground Academy’s garden was founded in November 2014 by a teacher who wished to provide students with gardening experience for self-development. The teacher and up to 25 students take care of the 200m2 garden per week. The produce is consumed by students, colleagues, and parents.

Start Year: Nov 2014

Manager: teacher & students

Size of land: 200 m

Product: veg & fruit

Consumer: staff, students Challenge: funding

Purpose: educational

Opportunity: school food supply

Figure 13.

The garden’s immediate success convinced the Academy’s principal to expand to possibly keep chickens and to increase crop yields, aiming to fully supply the school and a Peterborough Museum nearby care home with locally grown food. However, no funds exist for the maintenance or expansion of the garden and the school needs someone to tend the garden and livestock during holiday periods. Helping Stanground Academy overcome these challenges could be an opportunity for PCC to build a relationship. Manager: volunteers

Start Year: Spring

Peterborough Museum’s Garden (fig 2012 Consumer: staff, 14) was opened in 2012 with the physical and families Size of land: 60 m financial support of national wildlife charity Challenge: resources Product: herbs ‘Froglife’ and is frequented by the museum’s Opportunity: Purpose: expansion & selling in visitors and schools to learn about the history educational cafe of medicine and allotment growing. The garden grows several herb varieties for Figure 14 educational purposes. The garden is maintained by two volunteering staff members keen on passing on knowledge of UA to individuals, (social) enterprises and other institutions. 2

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Opportunities for the museum are the preparation and selling of its produce in the museum’s cafe and nearby establishments. Further growing activity on the museum’s front garden which is currently managed by an external group - interests the museum as it is hoped this might increase growing capacity and footfall. However, in order to realise such opportunities, some of the museum’s challenges need addressing: these include access to stable labour, funding, and the clarification around food safety regulations so that the museum can either sell produce commercially or share it.

Findings Table 6 gives a summary of the drivers, barriers, opportunities and challenges identified through our engagement: [Drivers] • Land ownership: gardens are located on institutions’ grounds, so they have tenure security • Educational, physical and mental health benefits • Basic start-up knowledge and skills: institutions’ growing patches are small and started by the staff who did not possess any qualifications • Large amount of people passing through institutions constitute a large volunteer base • Passing habit of UA onto next generations [Barriers] • Lack of funding; institutions do not have separate funds for the start-up and/or maintenance of garden, and therefore rely on volunteers • No continuous, year-round labour force; institutional gardens are difficult to tend during holidays, since staff aren’t present • Overload of administrative tasks: need to fill out many risk assessment forms to involve students or clients in the growing process [Opportunities] • Stable, self-sufficient supply of healthy local food • Interaction with surrounding communities; providing them with produce or engaging them in maintenance • Provision of basic start-up knowledge to other institutions, enterprises and individual growers [Challenges] • Institutional gardens are rare in Peterborough, due to not being included in the master-planning stage of development • Lack of leadership and formal organisation; it is often clear who started the garden and who looks after it, but there is no broad management network Table 6. Analysis of findings from Institutional Growing engagement

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

4.5. Conclusion Going forward toward our recommendations, we have tried to reduce our findings down to a succinct set of bullet points. The main issues affecting all UA initiatives in Peterborough are:

• • • • •

Funding Security of land tenure Effective knowledge sharing Space allocation for growing Overcoming negative perceptions around growing

… whilst recognising that there are:

•

Good, though informal, linkages (that can be strengthened)

• Passionate, knowledgeable people willing to further participate in UA

Policy Recommendations

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS In this chapter we summarize and link the findings from the literature review and representative investigations to our own recommendations. We suggest a staggered - or ‘phased’ - approach be taken, allowing initiatives to be properly consulted upon by relevant stakeholders. We have not been prescriptive with timeframes; loosely we felt that ‘short term’ could imply 1-2 years, ‘medium term’ 3-5 and ‘long term’ 6 years plus. Diagrams displaying our initial phasing of policy have been provided for each set of recommendation (see figs.15, 19, 21, 22).

5.1. Overarching recommendations Whilst the following sub-chapters focus on actions within each ‘type’, a more crosscutting set of recommendations is suggested here to tie these activities together and establish a common purpose. Thus, those engaging in urban growing will feel part of a larger movement and simultaneously benefit from the greater opportunities for knowledge transfer and mutual support this can bring. This is the thinking behind the ‘Peterborough Local Food Forum’ (PLF Forum) and the related Internet Resource Platform (see fig.16 for representative model of how the Forum and Internet Resource Platform might work). We also offer recommendations regarding Planning Policy and the exploration of future funding and land tenure options.

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Overarching Recommendations

Short Term

Medium Term

Long Term

The Peterborough Local Food Forum - Scoping

The Peterborough Local Food Forum - Consult on Form - Decide ‘working groups’ and aims

The Peterborough Local Food Forum - Stewardship

Internet Resource Platform -Evaluate existing resources

Internet Resource Platform - Bring on-line

Embed ‘growing spaces’ in Planning policy -SPD,Design and Masterplanning Explore funding optionsand means of securing land tenure - ongoing...

Figure 15. Phasing of overarching recommendations

‘Peterborough Local Food Forum' •

In conjunction with the key players identified in this report, initiate a scoping exercise for developing a network (or ‘Forum’) linking all willing groups involved in some form of UA in Peterborough. The Forum could be divided into sub-networks or ‘working groups’ e.g. • Allotment Network • Institutional Growing Network • Enterprise Network

§

Build the network in collaboration with willing actors to ensure people feel involved and want to participate. • Agree 'strategy/working groups' and meeting schedules. • Visioning exercise - establish long-term goals and priorities for Forum / Network.

§

Stewardship - vital for continued functioning of Forum

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Website or ‘Internet Resource Platform’ §

Explore existing internet resources and contact actors open to collaborating or exchanging information online

§

Commission the design of an ‘Internet Resource Platform’ (website) collecting existing resources together from Individual, Enterprise and Institutional activities to enable more effective communication (fig.17 for case study). Could include: • information from different groups around growing expertise • availability of growing spaces (including ‘land-sharing’) • events promotion

Peterborough Local Food Forum To include: representatives of different PCC departments (People & Communities, Public Health, Growth & Regeneration), representatives of sub-networks

Allotment Network

Enterprise Network

Institutional Growing Network

To include: PCC, Amey, Allotment Site Representatives, Peterborough Allotment Consortium

To include: PCC, representatives of (social) enterprises: Local Roots, Green BackYard, PECT, Big Barn, Groundwork

To include: PCC, representatives of institutions engaging in UA: Peterborough Museum, Stanground Academy

online platform

Internet Resource Platform (website)

Figure 16. Governance model for Peterborough Local Food Forum

Embed increased provision of ‘Growing Spaces’ in Planning Policy § PCC could investigate how it might promote the allocation of growing spaces by providing specific planning guidance in the form of a ‘Growing Spaces’ Supplementary Planning Guidance Document into its Local Development Framework (LDF). This might include:

1 2

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Best Practise Several years ago the council of Antwerp created EcoHuis, a not-for-profit orientated toward the betterment of Antwerp’s environment. Recently, EcoHuis established an onl ine p l atf orm cal led ‘Pl antw erp en’ where (new) growers can find growing tips, seeds, and materials for all types of gardens, e.g. backyards, terraces or pot growing. With the council’s support EcoHuis used the platform to begin distributing ‘st art -togrow’- b oxes which contain seeds and

information on when, how, and what to grow in the Antwerp urban climate. The initiative was a great success with the first 300 boxes se lling out w it hin a

Figure 17. Online platform Best Practice

•

Design and Master-planning guidance - ensure developers contribute to provision of Growing Spaces on new developments, both residential and commercial. ‘Edible Landscaping’ - promotion of edible fruit-bearing flora in all landscaping strategies (fig.18).

Provide further detail on how Growing Spaces constitute important components of ‘Green Infrastructure’ (in line with work undertaken in PCC’s existing ‘Green Grid Strategy’). o This in turn can make a stronger case for increasing Growing Space provision through s106 and CIL contributions.

Funding and Security of Tenure •

Ongoing investigation into the opportunities and challenges surrounding the use of community asset transfer powers and the potential of establishing a ‘Land Trust’ in the long term. o Consult with all stakeholders around the best form of securing tenure for their respective initiatives. o Explore additional funding options through Peterborough’s Environment Capital Action Plan funds, Adult Social Care and/or Public Health Budgets, Heritage Lottery Funding, EU Social Funding etc.

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Best Practice PCC could work together with charity ‘Trees for C ities ’ that runs a programme promoting the consumption of local food by collaborating with local councils, enterprises, and institutions to p lant frui t trees , organise cooking workshops etc. PECT engaged in the organisation’s Local Food project as part of their ‘Love Local’ project. Figure 18. Edible Landscaping Best Practice

5.2. Individual Growing ‘Type’ Following our engagement with allotment site representatives, we have generated several policy recommendations aimed at improving the conditions and productivity of Peterborough’s allotments and other less formal growing spaces. As allotments are the most prevalent form of UA existing in Peterborough, it is essential that existing and future participants find it easy to engage in this activity and continue doing so in the future.

Short Term

‘Test-bed’ scheme - begin with beds in high profile areas

Medium Term

Long Term

Allotment Sub-Network and ‘Internet Resource Platform’ - scoping

Allotment Sub-Network and ‘Internet Resource Platform’ - bring online

‘Test-bed’ scheme - feasibility of providing fully accessible micro-allotment beds

‘Test-bed’ scheme - expand provision

Make compost from household food waste free for all allotment holders Allotments provision as Green Infrastructure - adopt open new space standards

Allotments provision as Green Infrastructure - guidance for inner city allotments

Figure 19. Phasing of Individual growing recommendations

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Compost •

Free compost (from collected household food waste) for allotment holders. This can be seen as an investment by the council in the productivity of its own land and thus its value as a key asset for promoting UA.

‘Test-bed’ Scheme •

Introduce ‘Test-bed’ scheme - several micro-allotment beds in high profile areas (for instance ‘floating allotments’, in parks like the river embankment, or container beds on high streets etc.) to give newcomers an introduction to growing produce and to develop their skills before they commit to a larger allotment plot. • Investigate feasibility of establishing accessible plots for older residents, those with SEN / physical disabilities.

Allotment Network •

Facilitate the creation of an ‘Allotment Network’ as part of a wider PLF Forum and - by collaborating with relevant actors such as Peterborough DNA and Amey - begin work on dedicated online platform allowing for: o exchange of growing advice o advertising events o sharing of information on charities/organisations willing to accept donation of surplus o Peterborough specific land sharing listings (akin to national ‘Landshare Initiative’) whereby landowners / would-be growers can find each other

Allotments as Green Infrastructure • Promote allotments as key Green Infrastructure to be provided through s106/CIL contributions • Adopt the ‘proposed open space standards’ set out in PCC’s Green Grid Strategy into LDF and ensure that allotments (as a type of open space) are more actively sought throughout the planning application process. o Actively promote innovative approaches to providing allotments in the city centre (see fig. 20).

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Best Practise Canal Users In Hackney (C.H.U.G), in collaboration with Shoreditch Trust and Capital Growth, launched their ‘Floating Allotment’ in 2009. Whilst not an ‘allotment’ in the strictest sense, it provides an interesting example of how novel approaches to providing growing spaces in urban centres are being explored elsewhere.

Figure 20 Innovative approaches Best Practise

5.3. Entrepreneurial ‘Type’ The recommendations we developed after reflection on our interviews with different enterprises mainly revolve around suggesting ways to share existing tools and resolve the issue of land and produce selling.

Short Term

Clarify rules and guideline for those wishing to sell their produce

Medium Term

Long Term

Tools and Enterprise Sub-Network and Internet Resource Platform - scoping

Tools and Enterprise Sub-Network and Internet Resource Platform - bring online

Review allotment bylaws to allow for limited selling of surplus

Employment based initiatives in collaboration with key stakeholders to improve skill-base Designate growing spaces in parkland -consultation

Figure 21. Phasing of Enterprise recommendations

Designate growing spaces in parkland - offer short term leases

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Tools and Enterprise Network §

Use, share and contribute to existing tools and resources. Examples include Big Barn’s ‘Local Food Map’, as well as promoting the ‘Crop for the Shop’ programme.

§

Facilitate the creation of an ‘Enterprise Network’ as part of a wider PLF Forum and - by collaborating with relevant actors such as Peterborough DNA and Local Roots - begin work on an online platform allowing for: • collaboration to ensure that all potential land is being utilised • identification of which resources, expertise, timelines are needed

Selling produce and By-laws §

Clarify rules for those wishing to sell their produce, link emerging entrepreneurs who may be new to running a business and investigate their eligibility for tax-relief or Enterprise Investment Scheme money, for example.

§ Look at relaxing Peterborough’s local by-laws on selling allotment surplus to allow for produce to be traded in a controlled manner by those who might want to establish cooperative ventures or sell produce to raise funds for their allotment site or project. o PCC Allotment Gardens – Terms & Conditions 2.4: “The allotment garden is not to be used for any form of business or trade whatsoever”. PCC might consider assigning their legal team to look into this issue.

Employment Schemes •

££

Explore the possibility for employment based initiatives through collaboration with Groundworks, Job Centre Plus, and other stakeholders. Work with schools, colleges, and University Centre Peterborough who may have students keen for experience (cfr. Food Consumption Behaviour group’s recommendations on apprenticeships).

New growing spaces •

Designate park space for growing; collaborate with existing actors and projects like PECT’s ‘Love Local’ project to enable use of allocated growing space in public parks. Offering short term leases for growing on land is good for stimulating a culture of growing and getting new projects off the ground, but there is need for caution that groups do not get attached to spaces when leases end.

5.4. Institutional ‘Type’ Some of the recommendations for institutions provided below are similar to recommendations given for individual growing; by resolving some of the issues associated with individual UA, PCC simultaneously lowers barriers related to institutional gardening. Main recommendations for institutional growing include implementation of an Institutional Growing Network and a linked online platform through which institutions can support one another and exchange expertise.

Institutional Growing

Short Term

Medium Term

Long Term

Institutional Growing Network and Internet Resource Platform - scoping

Institutional Growing Network and Internet Resource Platform - bring online

Clarify regulation and compliance requirements for selling / sharing produce Open up institutional growing spaces - short term agreements

Open up institutional growing spaces - longer term coop schemes

Stimulate new institutional growing projects

Figure 22. Phasing of Institutional recommendations

Institutional Growing Network •

Facilitate the creation of an ‘Institutional Growing Network’ (IGN) as part of a wider PLF Forum and - by collaborating with Peterborough DNA, Stanground Academy and the Peterborough Museum - begin work on an online platform allowing for: o Sharing and exchanging expertise, seeds, farm tools, and information on how to sell produce in establishments and on organisations willing to accept surplus donations o Information sharing on available funding opportunities, material distribution schemes (e.g. B&Q’s scheme), and PCC’s UA encouraging initiatives (e.g. chipping of christmas trees into free bark chip).

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Selling produce •

££

Clarify regulation and compliance requirements around food safety law so that willing institutions can sell and share food grown on site. Use Stanground Academy as a successful example of consuming their self-grown vegetables in the school kitchen.

Institutions’ land for growing Open up institutional land that may currently be outsourced to large companies to individuals/social enterprises for growing based on renewable one-year agreements. In doing so, this may reduce attention towards allotment sites and improve individual growers’ risk and safety issues. o These short term agreements between institutions and individuals, communities, and social enterprises, might eventually be built upon and more sustainable cooperation schemes established.

•

Stimulate new institutional growing projects by using Peterborough Museum and Stanground Academy as good practice cases, and by informing institutions on organisations that provide financial and physical support (e.g. ‘Froglife’ and ‘Buglife’).

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

5.5. Methods of Delivery Below we provide Peterborough City Council with a variety of options on how to potentially approach implementation of some of the proposed recommendations. All of these suggestions will, however, need more exploration for PCC to be able to build on them.

Methods of Delivery • Option A – Capital Investment (Status quo – Grant fund a third party) PCC could offer grants to groups or institutions that would be used as capital towards development of a site for local food growing. Often done to stimulate house building a similar model could be adopted for UA. • Option B – Land and Building Donations PCC could donate land or novel space for growing, roofs for example, to organisations on the condition that it is used for local food growing purposes. • Option C – Influence Planning Policy Frameworks PCC could try to influence Planning Policy frameworks to encourage greater investments in community sites through a variety of planning mechanisms to help increase the delivery of sites for local food growing. This might include a policy in the local plan for new residential developments to have allocation for growing, funded by s106/CIL. • Option D – PCC acts as ‘Lender’; lower interest rate and other conditions PCC could provide land and investment at below market rate for an interested party to develop a site into a local community farm or space for institutions and individual growers to access. Conditions could be attached outlined by PCC to the borrower in relation to a payback period and what the site should achieve. This would help PCC achieve its target around local food growing if particular conditions such as allocated percentages are attached.

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

5.6. Stakeholders’ Future Support Network The table shows how new and existing UA initiatives in Peterborough could benefit from linking themselves to other initiatives through the networks and online platforms. More people might be encouraged to take up growing by presenting the different support systems available to them.

adapting type →

INDIVIDUAL

ENTERPRISE

INSTITUTIONAL

Share and exchange network: expertise, seeds, tools, surplus etc.

Sell food surplus from allotment growers

Share and exchange network: expertise, seeds, tools, surplus etc.

↓ benefitting type INDIVIDUAL

ENTERPRISE

Provide food surplus to sell

Share and exchange network: expertise and tools

Provide training (reduce turnover)

Open up gardens to individual growers

Share and exchange network: expertise and tools

Provide food surplus to sell

Provide training for existing enterprises and/or start-ups

INSTITUTIONAL

Provide training for existing enterprises and/or start-ups Provide student volunteers through apprenticeships

Share and exchange network: expertise, seeds, tools, surplus etc.

Share and exchange network: expertise and tools

Share and exchange network: expertise, seeds, tools, surplus etc.

Occupy gardens

Provide training

Employ students through apprenticeships

Provide education programmes for children and (young) adults

Sell food surplus from institutions (or individual growers on their lands)

Provide student volunteers through apprenticeships Reduce perceived liability risk

Concluding Remarks

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

6. Concluding Remarks Although Peterborough is home to a broad range of initiatives, the potential of UA has historically been limited, primarily due to a dwindling supply of land allocated to it as a result of sustained development pressure over the past 50 or so years. As Peterborough is a ‘growth zone’ within the London corridor, with house-building set to increase drastically in the coming decades, this growth need to be reconciled with tenure status of existing – and future - growing spaces in the city. Growing spaces must be considered a vital part of a city’s ‘Green Infrastructure’; those green and blue spaces so often taken for granted yet providing many important services to the environment and to society – from clean air and the provision of habitats for wildlife to local, low carbon food for urban populations. Peterborough will need to continue investing in this infrastructure if it intends to reap its benefits. The health and wellbeing benefits associated with growing your own food are also worthy of consideration. If PCC wishes to ensure its residents remain healthy and happy in future it must take a holistic view: support may be sought from the public health, adult social care and education budgets in light of this. In terms of the PCC’s Environmental Capital Action Plan target, whilst land sharing and growing initiatives should be encouraged in future developments, UA will most likely play a small part in meeting the target of 80% of food consumed to be produced and processed within 100 miles of the city by 2050. We suggest that UA ought to be regarded as more than simply a means of providing food to urban populations. It should be regarded as a step towards achieving important changes in local food behaviour, encouraging people to value locally grown food and building a more resilient food system by (re)engaging people with how food is produced. This is particularly important when we consider the unsustainability of our contemporary globalised food system and the insecurities this poses for us all in light of an increasingly uncertain future. There is a lot going on in Peterborough already and the efforts of everyone involved must be celebrated. We hope our recommendations help PCC to allow these initiatives to reach their full potential and get more people talking about and participating in UA.

Specific Output

u al

G ro w i n g

... more people of all ages and abilities are engaged in growing

... people growing produce on allotments and other less formal spaces find it easier to do so

Instit utio na l

ar O v er

... there are many more growing spaces available for people to utilise

Gro win

rise gf o r E n t erp

... everyone involvced in growing in Peterborough feels part of a bigger movement.

... social enterpises are in a better position to help get new growing spaces ... more people have ‘off the ground’ the skills required to grow food and run sustainable enterprises

... institutions find it easier to get help to set up and tend growing spaces on their property.

... institutions are more confident knowing what produce they can sell to their customers

... enterprising groups and indivuduals find it easier to sell a portion of their produce

... landshares and microbeds provide more opportunities for people to get involved

... more institutions see the value of providing space for growing

By 2030...

The diagram to the right summarises our recommendations to help Peterborough reach this vision.

We were tasked with developing a vision (see below) for how urban agriculture can contribute to providing more local, sustainable food for Peterborough residents in the future.

Exploring The Potential for Urban Agriculture in Peterborough

ing ow r G

Explore innovative means of providing growing space in the city centre, including ‘garden roofs’ and repurposing canal barges

Inititate a ‘Test-Bed’ scheme of micro-plots to give newcomers the opportunity to build up their skills before commiting to a full plot

Includes growing vegatables and other activities on allotments and in less formal spaces for personal use

Individual

Build a network of people growing food in the city to promote better communication and develop strategies collaboratively, supported by a dedicated website platform.

Clarify regulation and compliance requirements around food safety law so that willing instutions can sell food grown on-site

££

Open up institutional growing spaces to individuals/organisations to tend and manage on their behalf if under utilised

Includes growing spaces in the grounds of institutions such as schools, hospitals, care homes etc for educational purposes and/or for supplying food.

Institutional

Get the allocation of all sorts of growing spaces firmly embedded in Peterborough’s approach to planning and development

(for a more detailed picture, please see our full report)

Provide training and employment initiatives to get those with an interest in growing the necessary skills to gain work or start their own enterprises

££

Relax council bye-laws to allow a small amount of surplus to be traded in the right circumstances

Includes anyone selling produce grown in the city for profit and social enterprises working for social benefit in the community

Enterprise

Overarching

These apply to all growing projects and activities in Peterborough

Bibliography

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bellows, A, K. Brown and J. Smit 2003. 'Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture', Portland: Community Food Security Coalitions. Bouraoui, M. 2005. ‘Agri-Urban Development from a Land-use Planning Perspective: The Saclay Plateau (France) and the Sijoumi Plain (Tunisia)’, by L. Mougeot (ed.). Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture, London: Earthscan. Canals in Hackney Users’ Group, 2015 http://chug.org.uk/sustainability/ (accessed in 09/04/2015)

‘Sustainability’

[online]

available

Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University. ‘Minimum Income Standard’, [online] available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/results/. (accessed on 09/04/2015) Duchemin, E., F. Wegmuller, and A.M. Legaul 2008. 'Urban Agriculture: Multi-Dimensional Tools for Social Development in Poor Neighbourhoods', The Journal of Field Actions, 1. Edmonson, J., J. Davies, Z. Gaston, and K. Leake 2014. 'Urban Cultivation in Allotments Maintains Soil Qualities Adversely Affected by Conventional Agriculture', Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 880-889. Ferris, J., C. Norman and J. Sempik 2001. 'People, Land and Sustainability: Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development', Social Policy and Administration, 35, 559-568. Gardening for Health (2013). ‘Welcome to Gardening for Health‘, [online] available at: http://www.gardeningforhealth.org.uk/index.html (accessed on 28/01/2015). Growing Underground (2015). ‘Growing Underground’, [online] available at: http://growingunderground.com/ (accessed on 31/03/ 2015). Hackney Citizen (2014) ‘Dig for Victory! Hoxton Micro-allotments let residents grow own vegetables’, [online] available at http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/02/19/dig-victory-micro-allotmentsgrow-vegetables-hoxton/ (accessed on 06/04/2015). Hammersmith Community Gardens (2015). ‘Phoenix School Farm and Learning Zone’, [online] available at: http://www.hcga.org.uk/gardens/phoenix-school-farm/ (accessed on 11/02/2015). HK Farm (2015). ‘HK Farm’, [online] available at: http://www.hkfarm.org/local_food.html (accessed on 31/03/2015).

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Homes and Property (2012) ‘Kingsland Basin’s Floating Allotment Barge’, [online] available at: http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/home-garden/gardening/kingsland-basins-floating-allotmentbarge (accessed on 06/04/2015). Kaufman, J and M. Bailkey 2001. 'Farming inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States', Land Lines, 13. Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, (2014), ‘Economic drivers for urban and peri-urban agriculture’. Ulf Magnusson and Kristin Follis Bergman (eds) Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture for Food Security in Lowincome Countries – Challenges and Knowledge Gaps. SLU-Global Report. [Online] Available at: http://www.slu.se/Documents/externwebben/overgripande-slu-dokument/samverkan-dok/agric-sciglobal-dev/PDF/Urban%20and%20peri-urban/SLU-Global-report-2014-4-Urban-and-Peri-urbanAgriculture-for-Food-Security-webb.pdf. Merrill, J. (2015). 'Growing Underground: Michel Roux Jr reveals plans for subterranean farm in the depths of empty south London tunnels', The Independent, 30th January, [online] available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/growing-underground-michel-roux-jrreveals-plans-for-subterranean-farm-in-the-depths-of-empty-south-london-tunnels-9096184.html. Mogk, J., S. Wiatkowski and M. Weindorf 2010. 'Promoting Urban Agriculture as an Alternative Land Use for Vacant Properties in the City of Detroit', Wayne Law Review 56, 1521-1580. Mougeot, L. J. A. 2006. Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Moustier, P., G. Danso ed. 2006. ‘Local Economic Development and Marketing of Urban Produced Food’, by R. van Veenhuizen (ed.), Cities Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities, Philippines: RUAF Foundation, IDRC and IIRR. Nugent, R. ed. 2000. ‘The Impact of Urban Agriculture on the Household and Local Economies’, by N. Barker, M. Dubbelling, S. Gindel, U. Sabel-Koschella, H. de Zeeuw (eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food-Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, Germany: DSE. Plantwerpen, (2015). ‘Over alles wat groeit en bloeit in ‘t stad’, [online] available at: http://plantwerpen.be (accessed on 23/03/2015). Perez-Vazquez, A. et al. 2005. ‘Assessing Benefits from Allotments as a Component of Urban Agriculture in England’, by L. Mougeot (ed.). Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture, London: Earthscan. Peterborough City Council (2015). ‘Council Structure Chart’, [pdf] https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/upload/www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/councilstructure/CouncilStructureChart.pdf?inline=true (accessed on 01/04/2015).

available

at:

Ratcliffe, M.M., K. Merrigan, B. Rogers and J.P. Goldberg 2011. 'The Effects of School Garden Experiences on Middle School–Aged Students’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Associated with Vegetable Consumption', Health Promotion Practice, 12, 36-43.

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

Rosset, P.M. 1999. 'Policy Brief No. 4 the Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations', in: Food First, Amsterdam: Institute for Food and Development Policy. Saunders, M., M. Minnitt, I. Egginton-Metters, A. Gelston, 2011. The Living Classroom. School Farms in the UK: a mapping survey, Lancaster: Lancaster University. Smit, J., J. Nasr and A. Ratta. 2001. Urban Agriculture: Food Jobs and Sustainable Cities, The Urban Agriculture Network, Inc. with permission from the United Nations Development Programme. Stanground Academy (2014). ‘The Stanground Academy Garden’. [online] available at: http://www.stangroundacademy.org/news/8-4/The%20Stanground%20Academy%20Garden (accessed on 04/02/2015). The Green Backyard (2013). ‘The Green Backyard. http://www.thegreenbackyard.com/ (accessed on 04/02/2015).

[online]

available

at:

Trees for Cities (2013). ‘Local Food’, [online] available at: http://www.treesforcities.org/aboutus/local-food/ (accessed on 01/04/2015). Vivacity Peterborough Museums and Heritage (s.d.). ‘Museum Garden’, [online] available at: http://www.vivacity-peterborough.com/museums-and-heritage/peterborough-museum/museumgarden/ (accessed on 04/02/2015). Young, T. (07/2009). ‘Gladstone Neighbourhood Investment Plan. [pdf] available https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/pdf/Community-neighbourhood-GladstoneNIPFinalReport.pdf (accessed on 11/02/2015).

at:

Appendices

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

8. APPENDICES 8.1. List of Abbreviations CIL = Community Infrastructure Levy EU = European Union IGN = Institutional Growing Network LDF = Local Development Framework PAC = Peterborough Allotment Consortium PCC = Peterborough City Council PECT = Peterborough Environmental City Trust PLF Forum = Peterborough Local Food Forum s106 = Section 106 Agreements of Planning Practice Guidance SEN = Special Educational Needs UA = Urban Agriculture UCL = University College London

8.2. List of Figures Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of UA Typology Figure 2. Individual Growing case studies Figure 3. Enterprise Growing case studies Figure 4. Institutional Growing case studies Figure 5. Summary of findings from literature review Figure 6. List of representatives interviewed Figure 7. List of further stakeholders and initiatives (not interviewed) Figure 8. Map showing UA representatives and initiatives engaged with Figure 9. Allotment site reps Figure 10. PECT Figure 11. Local Roots Figure 12. The Green Backyard Figure 13. Stanground Academy Figure 14. Peterborough Museum Figure 15. Phasing of overarching recommendations Figure 16. Online platform Best Practice Figure 17. Edible Landscaping Best Practice Figure 19. Phasing of Individual growing recommendations Figure 20. Innovative approaches Best Practise Figure 21. Phasing of Enterprise recommendations Figure 22. Phasing of Institutional recommendations

48 Â

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

49 Â

8.3. List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Individual Growing literature Table 2. Summary of Entrepreneurial Growing literature Table 3. Summary for Institutional Growing Table 4. Analysis of findings from Individual Growing engagement Table 5. Analysis of findings from Entrepreneurial Growing engagement Table 6. Analysis of findings from Institutional Growing engagement Table 7. Summary of Overarching Recommendations for the 3 types of UA Table 8. Support Network of UA initiatives in Peterborough

8.4. Questionnaire for Individual Growers •

What is the current level of demand for allotment plots on your allotment site?

•

(How many vacant plots currently exist on this site?) If high... • Why do you think demand is high for this site? • Is there a waiting list for this allotment? • What can be done to ease demand: o … in Peterborough generally? o … site specific? If low… • Why do you think demand is low for this site? • What can be done to increase demand: o … in Peterborough generally? o … site specific?

•

Overall do you think interest in allotment gardening is growing / declining… o In Peterborough generally? o nationally? Do you feel allotment gardening is an important activity to promote in Peterborough?

• •

What do you think would help people to engage with this activity more? o In your view, what barriers exist for people new to allotment gardening who might like to start?

•

In your experience, how valuable do you think allotment gardening as an activity is in terms of… o providing exercise? o providing for one’s well-being / happiness? o access to healthy vegetables? o economic considerations (cheaper supply of vegetables)? o supplementing total food eaten at home? o providing space for nature? o maintaining a connection to the past? o ensuring people have a secure supply of food? o socialising with fellow gardeners?

•

Is it common for people to trade vegetables / other produce on this site?

•

What is done with surplus produce?

•

Do allotment holders express an interest in being able to sell their produce? o where? at market value?

•

What links exist between different allotment sites / holders in Peterborough?

• •

How is knowledge on growing shared? Formally/informally? How do you engage with the wider Peterborough Community?

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

8.5. Questionnaire for Entrepreneurs Groundworks • Would you be interested in facilitating for surplus produce to be grown? •

Is selling produce grown as part of a social enterprise, possibly online, something Groundworks would ever consider?

•

What would you need/might help you to expand in Peterborough?

•

What challenges do you think local food growers might encounter in Peterborough?

•

What role do you feel Peterborough City Council play in food growing in the city?

•

Are there any successful examples of Groundwork getting involved in a social enterprise directly related to food production?

Peterborough Environment City Trust (PECT) • What challenges do you think local food growers might encounter in Peterborough? •

Would you be interested in facilitating for surplus produce to be grown? (why?)

•

What would you need/might help you to expand in Peterborough?

•

Are there any governance issues which might affect the success of projects such as ‘Love Local’ in Peterborough?

•

Is selling produce grown as part of a social enterprise, possibly online, something PECT would ever consider?

Local Roots • Council’s role. Are the council in any way a barrier? What could they do to assist or encourage Local Roots or urban agriculture in general? •

If you were to expand what might help you do this?

•

Where do you grow? Do you have a designated growing space?

•

How did you come to start up Local Roots - motivations/history?

•

Do you just want to sell your own produce would you be interested in sourcing other people’s produce too?

•

Are you only going to work as a wholesaler? Would you be interested in veg box system, maybe being the administrator - quality controller.

•

PECT: Do they have the capacity to do this stuff? Would you be interested in working with socialenterprise growing models or do you want to stay quite independent?

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough Big Barn • We are mainly promoting fruit and veg growth. •

Do you ever get small individual growers selling online?

•

What sort of quality control system do you have?

•

Do you have any urban sellers, like sellers from urban farms that you particularly like?

•

If we set up a shop on the big barn marketplace how would that work? Are many of your sellers social enterprises?

•

Do you have any sort of green or ecological policy or general opinion?

•

Is there any one thing that stands out as doing really well online? (salad leaves, meat)

The Potential Of Urban Agriculture In Peterborough

8.6. Questionnaire for Institutions Details of institution • What kind of institution are you? • How many people do you accommodate? • How many people do you feed or would you want to feed? • How much food do you consume? Questions for Stanground Academy & Peterborough Museum • Who owns the garden? The Academy, council or community? •

How much land do you have available for gardening? (size of plot)

•

How much did you spend on the starting up of the garden and how much are you spending now on its maintenance? Who funds the garden?

•

Who maintains the garden? Do you have sufficient resources, skills, people to exploit the land?

•

What problems have you encountered when starting up and dealing with the garden/farm? How have you dealt with these issues?

•

Is producing food the main aim of your garden/farm? o NO: What are the main aims of your garden/farm? Then pass on to question under YES. o YES: § How much are you producing? How many people can be fed with the produce? § If you are producing a surplus: what do you do with it? Or what would you want to do with it? Would you consider selling produce to the community, households linked to the institutions (schools: parents), farmers’ market …?