Bit between the teeth

In the Faversham News (20 June) Mark Gardner comments on the “bitter clash of ideas” over the future of the creek. But concerns that the consultation process will change nothing may, he feels, be too pessimistic. “Certainly public opinion should play a full part,” he says, “and not merely be for ‘noting’, having gone through the consultative motions.”

In letters to the editor (Faversham News and Faversham Times) Brian Caffarey and David Simmons complain about “bad behaviour” at the Neighbourhood Plan exhibition and give reasons for the ban on filming and photography, while Chris Berry and Hilary Whelan call for the authorities to be more open and listen to campaigners, rather than attempting to discredit them as troublemakers.

The current Neighbourhood Plan consultation remains open until June 29. Details here.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Bit between the teeth

  1. Richard Murr

    The Creek Neighbourhood Plan Exhibition was not about the failed planning application for change of use of one building at Standard Quay to restaurant use. Its main proposals were for lots of new housing on these sites – the garden of Standard House and land in front of it, the SECOS site, the former coach depot and single storey office building at Standard Quay, the yard behind the cottages to the right of the Anchor (… Yard?), the former Frank and Whittome buildings alongside the Creek where Wilkinsons Sails and others are now based, other parts of the former Frank and Whittome site the other side of Belvedere Road, the Quay near the Purifier Buiding (Ordnance Wharf) and the BMM Weston Car Park alongside the Upper Basin to name some.

    The garden of Standard House and land behind was of course Goldsmith’s Yard. Boats and ships were built there not just at Pollocks Yard on the other side of the Creek.

    All concerned know land with planning permission for building is worth far more than commercial land. No developer or landowner is going to sell or even let land for commercial use when there is a chance he could get Planning Permission at some time in the future for Residential Use.

    Reply
  2. Trevor Fentiman

    Does this mean that all those who attended are against the project and those who did not don’t care that it goes ahead, if so it was a very small percentage of Faversham’s population who are against it.

    Can some one please tell me when this building was used for boat building before its very short span just lately, I was borne in Faversham and have lived hear most of my life playing in this area in my youth, this building was a grain store where we collected excess grain for the rabbit, and watched the sprat’s being unloaded for the fertilizer companies along this side of the creek and up into the basin. We would take a day off school to watch a boat being launched from the other side of the creek from the boat builder Pollocks to which a film has been made documenting this, if boat building is so important to the creek why did no one come forward when the proper site was developed on the opposite side of the creek where houses and small units are now sited.

    I think the whole issue should be about preserving the building as part of the towns heritage not saving someones business, if the business is doing so well why don’t they make an offer to the owner for the site and put an end to this.

    Reply

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