Faversham Town Council and The Public

The meeting papers for the next Faversham Town Council meeting, with the minutes of the previous meeting, are now online. Points to note:

1. The council spent £10,625 on the Neighbourhood Plan exhibition for the consultant, leaflet, leaflet drop, drawings and sketches, hire of the Alexander Centre and the development and maintenance of the website.

2. At the Neighbourhood Plan steering group meeting tomorrow (25 July) the public “would be able to ask questions for a short time before the start of the meeting. The public would not be able to take part at any other time during the meeting. The public would also be asked to withdraw during any discussion relating to specific sites, comments of landholders, and matters involving information of a confidential nature. In the light of recent behaviour by some members of the public at the Neighbourhood Plan Illustrations Exhibition, it was important to remind everyone of the need to act in an appropriate manner. If there
was any disturbance (which technically included any interruption by the public), that member of the public would be asked to withdraw from the meeting.

3. At the Town Council meeting on Monday 29 July, at which the feedback from the Neighbourhood Plan exhibition is scheduled to be presented to the council, there will be ten (10) minutes allocated for questions from the public.

Does The Public have any comments?

7 thoughts on “Faversham Town Council and The Public

    1. Hilary Whelan

      I fear that any attempt to do so would be used as an excuse to throw everyone out for being naughty, and we really want people in there to hear what’s being said. Ideally, the steering group should be inviting someone to film these meetings and put them online so that those who are unable to attend can see what’s happening. Not everyone is able to go to meetings, and the Guildhall would be a bit crowded if they did …

      1. eric glynn

        but as you well know we have a legal right to film the meeting, do you not think that forcerfully
        and effectively asserting that right is overdue

    2. Jill Holder

      As a couple of members of the Steering group (and one non member) have made it their business to refer to my ‘bad behaviour’ at the consultation, not quite as privately as they had hoped or expected, I would like to set the record straight. I did not post on the Visions site earlier as I am fed up with personal replies and downright lies. I was away when the last lot appeared, but I do have a couple of witnesses to the lineup’s indifference and almost baiting behaviour.

      On the Friday evening, when I was minding my own business and trying to concentrate, I was asked repeatedly for my name, (they seemed to think I was someone else, and that I was part of a troublesome group). I was harrassed until I raised my voice upon which I was admonished by Jackie White who was clearly not interested in the fact that it was not I who started it and threatened to throw ME out. The person who reported this story (wrongly) was not present. Sue Jobbins spoke to me at length following this and was the only person in this whole sorry affair to truly listen.

      It is true that I fly posted – the consortium’s own poster with a rider that everyone possible should attend – 500 printed and delivered by myself at the crack of dawn on the day and removed same time the next day, along with all traces (staples etc). (except 2 which had been removed, but not the staples). The event was not well advertised regardless of what has been said.

      It is also true that I became upset on the Saturday. I asked several times about a proper poster and was told that the flyers would be enough. These were taped to the back of a board advertising a book sale and could not be read without stooping at close quarters. When I pointed this out I was told that they would do something about it. They did nothing. I even offered to pay for a poster myself and put it up, but was told that we could not put anything on the walls or windows and that for the board the book sale took precedence. (over the future of the Creek, I asked? to no reply)

      Because of this I took to asking members of the public, very politely, were they aware that the show was in progress. Very few did, and many only went in because I persuaded them to. People were coming out and telling me what they thought and I became aware that they had not found all of the forms. I returned into the hall 3 times to show people who could not find them, and several returned themselves. I then tried to explain to the steering group that people did not realise that there were 2 different sets of forms to fill in and would it not be possible to hand them out to people as they arrived? I was told that I was just creating a nuisance and that if people really wanted to make comments that they would find the forms. It was the indifference of an intimidating row of be-sulted and hair-dressed people, who were just standing there and not engaging with anyone that truly riled me.- like talking to a wall and I yelled! It was naughty and I was ashamed later.

      This was a very badly organised event, yet the group could even accept that. – it was also our money they had spent on it. Where did the budget for this meeting go? On all those pretty pictures and the hairdresser?

    3. Visions of a Creek

      Technically, the rules allowing filming etc. only apply to “a district, unitary, county or London authority that has a leader and cabinet or mayor, and cabinet government arrangement” – so it doesn’t apply to town and parish councils – but that’s no excuse for hiding behind the letter of the law. The council should realise that its defensive attitude generates hostility and mistrust. If it opened up more – and actively invited filming or recording of meetings – it would not only have a record of what took place in case of queries or challenges, but would also make itself a lot more popular and get a more co-operative response from the public.

  1. Francesca

    I’m struggling to believe what I’m reading to be honest. Why do they think this behaviour is appropriate given this is effect it will have upon the residents of Faversham and it’s council tax payers money that is paying for the plan and future developments. Things are not sitting comfortably for me on this issue at all.


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 )

Connecting to %s