Storm over “misleading poster”

The Faversham News (6 June, p8) reports that the poster for the Neighbourhood Plan illustrations exhibition on 7/8 June is misleading because the “present” and “future” images are of different parts of the creek, and are thus not a valid comparison. The article shows an alternative poster showing comparable views from the same location. Nigel Kay, chairman of the Neighbourhood Plan steering group, reportedly leapt to the defence of the official poster, arguing that he could not see how it was misleading.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Storm over “misleading poster”

  1. Brian Caffarey

    Why is the alternative version , with a picture taken on the day of a special event, less misleading?

    Reply
    1. Jill Holder

      Because the neighbourhood plan was intended to be aspirational – for US, the residents, not for a load of greedy speculators. Instead of that it seems me to be one of the worst things that have happened to Faversham in a long time opening the floodgates to development which, even in 1970 was not recommended. And the reason, Mr Caffrey, that I have not replied to any of your other comments is because the last time you insulted me personally – a very low trick and completely and utterly without foundation.

      Reply
      1. Brian Caffarey

        I’m sorry if I insulted you: I don’t recall doing so.

        The NP doesn’t open the floodgates to development. I don’t recall Michael White waiting for it in relation to planning applications for Standard Quay or Ordnance Wharf. And the SECOS site has just been sold and will no doubt be the subject of a planning application in due course. At least with a NP development would be subject to some local constraints and not just decided by the National Planning Policy Framework, which is heavily loaded in favour of development, especially housing.

        Being ‘aspirational’ is fine but, if it’s just ‘pie in the sky’, the world will carry on regardless.

    2. Hilary Whelan

      Because (a) it shows the same location as the illustration, from the same perspective, not a completely different part of the creek, and (b) it shows what will be lost – the opportunity for Faversham to host colourful, crowd-pulling community events like the recent nautical festival – if the creekside is turned into just another housing estate.

      Reply
      1. Brian Caffarey

        You’d have to be very literal-minded to think that the poster was meant to show precisely the same location on the Creek.

        No one is suggesting that the Creekside should be turned into ‘just another housing estate’. You know that’s misleading, so why say it? The whole point of the NP is to provide a legally-based planning framework for the Creek which would determine which sites are suitable for development, and of what type, and which aren’t.

      2. Hilary Whelan

        In reply to Brian Caffarey’s response: when I’m invited to compare “before” and “after” shots, I expect them to be of the same thing. I think most people do. And at the illustrations exhibition, Ordnance Wharf: large block of housing. Swan Quay: three large blocks of housing. Secos site/oil depot: massive housing development. Add that to all the existing housing development, especially on the SE bank. I don’t think it’s misleading to describe that as a housing estate.

      3. Brian Caffarey

        It was just a poster encouraging people to come along to an – excellent – exhibition. Given that there were two ‘before’ and one ‘after’ illustrations, which were clearly not directly comparable, only nitpickers and those desperate to find something to criticise would want to spend time making a big fuss about it.

        Well, we’ll have to disagree on the ‘housing estate’ point: It’s clearly an exaggeration but any objective attender of the exhibition will see that.

      4. Hilary Whelan

        No, Brian, that will not do. It wasn’t “just a poster”. It didn’t just happen; posters don’t design themselves, Somebody sat down and thought about it and made a deliberate choice of which photographs to use, and the question is why did they choose those particular photographs? It’s not as if there aren’t any photographs of the site shown in the illustration. And it would have been useful at the exhibition if there had been photographs alongside each of the illustrations. As I was going round (twice, so this wasn’t just a one-off blip on the radar) I was constantly hearing people saying things like “Where is that? I can’t make it out, is it the bit next to …? oh no, it can’t be … so what is that over there …?” Current photographs, to put the illustrations in context, would have been extremely helpful, especially for people who don’t know all the sites intimately.

      5. Brian Caffarey

        Well, it looked like a poster to me! What did you think it was? You are attaching a ridiculous degree of importance to it. It’s the exhibition that matters and the reaction of people around me seemed to be one of appreciation of the information provided and the opportunities to comment. It was a fantastic effort, in my view, by people largely giving up their own time to make it happen,

        What a surprise that you’re able to find something to criticise!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s