Clear as mud

The agenda for the next meeting of Swale Borough Council’s Cabinet, on 11 March, includes a report recommending that the Cabinet should approve the allocation of £200,000 capital funding from the Council’s reserves, as a contribution to fund the works required to replace the Faversham Creek swing bridge. This would be subject, quite reasonably, to various practical and technical considerations – but also, inexplicably, to “approval of the Neighbourhood Plan”. The meaning of this (approval by whom?) and the rationale for including it as a condition remain unclear.

While this report suggests that funding is somehow dependent on the Neighbourhood Plan, without explaining why, the management group of the Faversham Creek Consortium (chaired by Councillor Cosgrove, who is the Cabinet Member for Regeneration referred to in the report) said exactly the opposite. According to the minutes of their meeting in November 2014, they said it would be important that the independent examiner should be satisfied that there were credible plans to fund an opening bridge – ie, that the Neighbourhood Plan depended on there being funding in place for the bridge, not the other way around.

The references to the Neighbourhood Plan elsewhere in the report to Cabinet seem somewhat confused. Item 2.6 says that the plan “is currently being finalised and will then be submitted to DCLG by the end of February. It will then be subject to an independent examination and put to a referendum later in 2015.” This is puzzling, since the Neighbourhood Plan was supposed to have been finalised already (the submission draft which went out to consultation in November/December) and should not be altered without further consultation. It is also not clear what is meant by “submitted to the DCLG” (and, since we have heard nothing, we must assume that the end-February deadline has been missed).

The report later says (5.1) that in “early spring” the plan will be “examined by the external assessor to determine viability”. This is also unclear. If “external assessor” means “independent examiner”, then it is not correct to say it will be examined for viability. The examiner would examine only for compliance with the statutory requirements. If it does refer to a viability assessment, it’s a bit late – that should have been done before the last consultation.

It is now 11 weeks since the close of that consultation and the silence has been deafening. There has been no mention of the plan at subsequent meetings of Faversham Town Council, the body responsible for it, and it is not on the agenda for the meeting next Monday (9 March). Isn’t it about time the council told its electorate what is going on?

 

 

 

 

http://services.swale.gov.uk/meetings/documents/s2250/Report.pdf

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Clear as mud

  1. Sue Cooper

    Isaw somewhere that £23,000 has been allocated for some kind of consultancy report for the bridge. Do we know who commissioned this, when, from whom and what are the terms of reference? . Yet again is yet another (is there a way to express and infinite number of yet again yet anothers?) consultancy firm having money thrown at it by the powers that really should not be…??. For goodness sake, we all bloody know what the situation is. What on earth is another consultant going to do apart from start all over again – yet again. And you can bet your bottom dollar £23,000 will only be the start of it – just like the £20,000 that started off the whole ridiculous Neighbourhood Plan farce – and we forget that that was on top of £100,000s that had already been wasted on various pointless paper exercises over recent decades. Someone needs to be held to account for this utterly scandalous waste of public money.

    Reply
  2. David Walker

    Entirely supportive of all these observations. How good it is to know that there are some people who follow this saga closely enough to make these accurate comments. I comment from afar but my thoughts are local having once lived there. What a complete mess local government is in this area! Where I live now the lines of commuication and decision protocol are much clearer.
    I hope the creek has the outcome most people want and thankyou to the author of these latest comments.

    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