The Movie

Have you seen the film ‘Visions of a Creek’? More details on this page.

Do you have any comments, any ideas or suggestions about the future of Faversham and the direction of the Neighbourhood Plan?

If you do, please share them on this page.

33 thoughts on “The Movie

  1. Brian Caffarey

    In response to Hilary’s message of 14 May: 1. No, but it would be a shame if your alacrity in commenting discouraged others from responding. I was particularly interested to know what Harold Goodwin thought had been kept secret from him, given that he seems to have taken an interest in the Neighbourhood Plan only fairly recently. 2. I didn’t suggest that there was a conspiracy. 3. I was aware of that, thanks. 4. They are allowed to. But you don’t seem to want to on the basis, you seem to suggest, that people haven’t listened to you in the past. You seem even to have rejected my suggestion that you seek a meeting with the Steering Group to put forward your views. Do you expect them to come knocking on your door? Let’s hear what your ‘realisable vision’ is for the Creek – but of course you do have to be realistic: there isn’t a lot of taxpayers’ money sitting out there waiting to be spent on the Creek. It’s going to be hard enough securing funding for a new bridge.

    Reply
    1. Standard Quay

      Hi Brian! Just thought I would let you know that anything posted by Save Standard Quay is usually me (Sue Cooper) I do try to use that persona when making comments based on what is said by people who have contributed to both the Save Standard Quay Facebook page and standardquay.com the website which I also set up during the last days or the Quay as a boatyard. I am not sure what Voices of a Creek is so not sure where that came from. But the Flood designation question is one I have been asking for a very long time as have others.

      Who did ask for it?

      and also why does the Fullwood Report not mention that SQ was a working, non-public-money absorbing viable business in no need of regeneration? No taxpayers money asked for or required.

      I do get slightly irritated by this constant assertion that we need outside funding for everything when SQ worked and was growing and building up an apprenticeship scheme under its own steam.

      The apprenticeship scheme was run and started by the way, not by the Cambria, which was attracted and part funded by us in the form of subsidised facilities, but by the management of the Quay. The Cambria used the apprentices (although they worked mainly on other vessels which used to come for seasonal maintenance).

      Sadly, the Quay’s very success attracted developers wanting to use the backdrop but not be bothered with the long term commitment required.

      Hope that clears up a few misconceptions. And for goodness sake, stop being so negative. The Creek can be fantastic. There is a lot of really good support out there. Stop telling everyone what we can’t do and help us get stuck in to actually do something positive.

      All the best
      Sue Cooper

      Reply
      1. Brian Caffarey

        Response to Sue Cooper’s post of 15 May

        Sue – thanks for the clarification re postings. The reference to ‘Voices of a Creek’ was a slip on my part: I meant ‘Visions of a Creek’, which I was well aware was Hilary in her role as moderator.

        Flood designation: I don’t know much about the history of this but are you really suggesting that there is no foundation for changing the designation? I can’t imagine that Swale BC were able to take this decision without reference to DEFRA/The Environment Agency. The change may be unwelcome to you/Hilary but, realistically, the Neighbourhood Plan has to work on the basis of the current position and certainly can’t be a vehicle for making any change.

        Standard Quay – is there any convincing evidence that, even if the restaurant application is eventually rejected, a commercially-sustainable boat-building/repair business would return there? I understand that there are two dry docks for barges now at Oare and four berths for barges at Iron Wharf. Why, if the business wasn’t able to be sustained previously (for whatever reason) at SQ, would it be able to do so in future?

        Negativity – I’m hugely enthusiastic about having a Neighbourhood Plan for the Creek, which will set down legal parameters on the sites that can be developed and set out expectations about things like design and associated public benefits; about opening up the Inner Basin, having an opening bridge and a programme for dredging; about increasing public access to, and enjoyment of, the Creek; about encouraging more boats of all kinds to use the Creek; and making the Creek a more important part of the town’s attraction to visitors. What I’m critical of are: the assumption by at least some of the Creek lobby that the Creek should be the sole preserve of maritime heritage enthusiasts and the apparent belief that the 19,000 residents of Faversham (and visitors to the town) overwhelmingly share this view and are similarly obsessed about its future; the unwillingness of some of the same group to confront reality or to make any compromises even though they must know, deep down, that failure to achieve a Neighbourhood Plan would be the worst possible outcome; the increasingly unpleasant attempts at intimidating anyone who doesn’t fully subscribe to the Creek lobby’s views; the self-interest of those who, while promoting the importance of, and their love of, the Creek, are acting to prevent public access to it; and the willingness to play on people’s emotional attachment to ‘visions’ of the Creek/barges/maritime heritage, whether factually based or not, at the expense of a rational debate about what is actually practicable and achievable.

  2. Richard Matthewman

    The movie pointed out the lack of signs indicating the way to the Creek, the Basin, Standard Quay and Iron Wharf and the lack of mention of ‘the Creek’ on Faversham signs in general. Could I suggest that this be taken up by the Creek Trust and Council with a view to actions being taken to erect signs to direct people to the different parts of the Creek in Faversham and its environs?

    Reply
  3. Richard Matthewman

    The trouble with these blogs, is that there is always a great deal to read. I saw the film last night and have seen others and attended meetings, but am not fully familiar with all the groups and personalities involved. I am certainly in favour of the use of Standard Quay for boat building and for Orndance Wharf to be used as a Wharf and not for flats. I strongly oppose the development plans for a restaurant on Standard Quay. The reasons were eloquently expressed in the film.
    My first comments and impressions are:
    1. Opposition is fine, but eventually (as Griselda states above) we have to stop simply saying ‘we oppose…’, and put forward a plan of action as an alternative.
    2. Swale Borough Council want a revenue stream from the Creek in terms of council tax (e.g. flats) and business rates (e.g. restaurants). That is fair. Tourists don’t pay council tax or business rates, but bring revenue to shop keepers, cafes, etc. So, we need to know/say how using Standard Quay and Ordnance Wharf for boat building and maintenance etc., will provide SBC with a revenue to match flats and a restaurant and will pay for themselves? While the uses for boat building activities will certainly enhance Faversham, what sort of revenue will they create? Or will they need to be propped up by funding from elsewhere? If they don’t pay their way, Standard Quay will become a dilapidated part of town ripe for development! (again).
    3. What would be great would be for SBC to compulsorily purchase Standard Quay (I know we missed the boat three years ago, but we should try again and keep all options open), and either manage it themselves or bequeath it to say the Creek Trust. The moorings could provide an income stream.
    4. It is essential to put forward a plan for the rebuilding of the bridge – a fully costed and technically sound plan. Is there such a plan? Could a plan be commissioned, by say the Creek Trust? Could an engineer be found in Faversham who would do it for free?
    5. The residents of Faversham need representation at all planning meetings/neighbourhood plan meetings. Can this be achieved? How can the residents of Faversham take control of the situation? What is the plan to address the lack of democratic representation issues?
    6. Faversham could be to Swale what Whitstable is to Canterbury. The town is a wonderful place to live, everyone knows that. I stood in the council elections two years ago, because I know that and want it to continue. The heritage (i.e. listed buildings) is great, and has been protected by the hard work of residents over the past 30 or more years, but the film showed how the Creek has slipped of the Town’s agenda. That work must continue, and so yes, we need a core of dedicated volunteers to keep the work to protect the Creek going. How will this be brought about? Yet another question…

    So, Hurray, for the film and the debate…

    Reply
    1. Hilary Whelan

      I agree with much of what you say – but not point 2. The creek is not a cash cow for Swale Borough Council, and SBC is not in charge of the Neighbourhood Plan – though people may be forgiven for thinking that it is, given that it’s based on Swale’s Fullwood Report, Swale councillors and their consultant Tony Fullwood are on the steering group, and Fullwood will be drawing up the plan. This is one of the reasons why people in Faversham feel no sense of ownership for this plan. In fact it is legally the responsibility of Faversham Town Council, and the town needs to assert its authority. As for boatbuilding, from the information I’ve seen, such business is perfectly viable given security of tenure to allow for investment and growth.

      Reply
    2. Brian Caffarey

      It’s fanciful, surely, to think that in these straitened times Swale Borough Council would consider trying to compulsorily purchase Standard Quay simply because some people don’t like the proposed use of one building? This is quite apart from the legal requirement which, as I understand it, requires a council to demonstrate a compelling need in the public interest. (Yes, I know some Creek campaigners would think this test applies, but I doubt if Swale BC or the planning inspectors would even if the SBC thought it a defensible use of public money.)

      Reply
    3. Philip and Carol Isern

      13 May 2013

      Firstly we would like to thank Mike Maloney and all those who contributed to the making of ‘Visions of a creek’ – a truly remarkable film which left us with some very positive thoughts. It is common sense that before we are bombarded with a mass of pretty visuals showing properties overlooking the creek, we look at what we actually have – an area needing a great deal of work and commitment but with enormous potential as a leisure, recreational and working environment which could be such an asset to the whole of Faversham. Property development benefits a minority, are a short term economic boost and add nothing to the uniqueness of the town. Visitors come here to soak up the atmosphere and rich history. We must not throw any of that away. We hope that eventually the people who spoke with such passion about the creek will win over the sceptics and faint hearted who think the only way forward for this area is yet more housing.

      Philip and Carol Isern

      Reply
      1. Brian Caffarey

        A response to Philip and Carol Isern: No one is saying that the only answer is housing. But if you declare the Creek a ‘no go’ area for new housing – which is almost certainly unrealistic, given the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework – it simply means that more housing will need to be built elsewhere in Faversham. It also means that, in the absence of a Neighbourhood Plan for the Creek, development will be determined through planning applications for individual sites, with less chance to influence those developments and fewer opportunities to gain public benefits.

  4. Jill holder

    I noted with interest the architect’s comments about how the next neighbour hood plan meeting will give members of the public a chance to see a vision for the future. Sadly I was under the future(obviously) mistaken impression that this vision was supposed to be ours (that intensely annoying and troublesome club whose members call themselves PUBLIC). But if I understood this gentleman correctly. and it’s there in full 3D colour, this is someone or some group who want to show me THEIR vision.
    Furthermore. I can choose to like them or not, I may chat about them. But I may not suggest anything different.

    Reply
    1. Brian Caffarey

      Jill – you can certainly suggest something different but, in the end, you or someone else needs to be able to show how it could be realised. That’s not an unreasonable requirement for a plan, is it?

      Reply
      1. Hilary Whelan

        In the end, yes, you have to show how it could be realised. But that is not the the starting point. The starting point is the vision. Then we work to make it deliverable. The steering group had the Fullwood report foisted upon it as its starting point – supposedly, to save money – and it has never truly considered any other option. But there was nothing inherently deliverable about that report. Swale, and now the steering group, are having to tie themselves in knots to make it work, and it’s costing a fortune, both financially and ethically (sidestepping the Local Plan, the flood risk designation, public opinion …). Other visions can be made deliverable if you put in that much money, time and effort, but unless people are given the opportunity not only to put them forward but also to have them taken seriously, we shall never know if they can be realised or not.

  5. Griselda Mussett

    I think it’s time for the Creek Consortium to shut up shop…it has no place in the statutory mechanism and has not produced the hope-for results when we dreamed it up all those years ago. Although I did not attend their recent AGM I heard about it – what a waste of time and effort.

    A recent scurrilous poem about the Faversham Society which was pinned up round the town shows there is a huge amount of frustration about the Society’s responses to recent planning applications. For all it’s successes, it has utterly failed to express people’s instinctive feelings about sensitive sites and what is at risk if sheer ££££ is allowed to take over. The Society must either revise that committee’s personnel or modus operandi, or hive off its campaigning activity into a separate organisation.

    The movie expressed dismay at how the same old faces keep appearing in the process of planning debate and decision-making in Faversham. The same could be said of the volunteers who give up so much of their time and livelihoods to try to keep the good stuff going. It is hard work doing this. It was thoroughly invigorating to see and hear so many people expressing the same thoughts that we have had in trying to keep the old skills going. It may be that the only way to remove the gatekeepers and secret-merchants is to make sure they don’t get re-elected, so someone has to be willing to stand against them at the next round of elections. It also means months or years more of their rule. It’s very hard to find people willing to put so much time in, and we volunteers do not get paid any expenses whatsoever. I have no idea what level of pay or expenses the councillors get.

    I also find it very odd indeed that Cllr Cosgrove has been replying to all the posts on this site… is there no-one else with a view? The point is, it shouldn’t be just one person defending the sorry mess they’ve got themselves into. Unelected, unremovable.

    The Friends of the Creek of which I am still nominally chairman used to shoulder the campaigning and environmental issues but has been quiet during the lifetime of the Consortium. One practical way forward would be for a new group of volunteers to come forward to take up where the old committee left off, and for the Friends to take up cudgels again. The constitution of the Friends is transparent and we had the honour of winning through three Public Inquiries to stave off the dreadful plans for a so-called ‘business park’ at Abbey Farm (18 years of fighting) and the initial applications to build flats on Ordnance Wharf. Who’s interested? See me.

    This won’t sort out the whole picture, but closing the Consortium and reinvigorating the Friends might help to clarify matters. Then we need to draft out what WE want for the Local Plan, not leave it to someone else.

    As for the point which I think Mr Cosgrove was trying to make in response to my first post here: the Borough Council has to stand utterly firm, uncompromising, not deviating by one iota from the existing Local Plan (AAP2) when any enquiries come in about – say – Standard Quay. It can ONLY be used for maritime purposes. Whoever buys such a property, or Ordnance Wharf, has to know they will NEVER get approval for tweaks and trashery – restos, tat shops, crappy signage, car-parks, flats, whatever. It has to stay in maritime use and properly labelled as being in the flood plain. Speculators take risks. That risk should be clearly spelled out. Craven kowtowing just eggs them on.

    Reply
    1. Jill holder

      I would be prepared to get thoroughly involved with a group fighting to iniitiate compulsory purchase of heritage sites in Fav inc Abbey Farm and all remaining property along the Creek, but I am not organised enough to head it up. Without ownership we are lurching, part -time, unpaid, unfunded, insulted and exhausted from one campaign into the next. £178.000 was made available to us by government through the Vanguard scheme. But we never received it. It was intercepted by a very few wishing to ensure that they had a job for another year, or with other ambitions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the needs and desires of a considerable number of people this town.

      Reply
      1. Brian Caffarey

        Only £20,000 was made available by central government. The rest of the expenditure had to be found by SBC. The allegation that money was ‘intercepted by a few wishing to ensure that they had a job for another year’ is absurd.

    2. Mike Cosgrove

      Grisleda it only seems to be you and me… and one or two others, I am sorry you are so negative about those who do try to positevly make changes. Why hit out at the Faversham Society.? On the film even Chris Wright who made some good points, didnt have an easy solution to gates and dredging.
      When Eldon and Chris came to the workshop in November a lot of progress was made, Simon and Glyn have done some good work on lifting bridge design. So why rubbish everything and throw away the chance of more progress?

      Reply
    3. Brian Caffarey

      Griselda – can I suggest that intemperate and dismissive comments of the kind that you’ve made here are simply likely to encourage the sort of unacceptable behaviour which you deprecate?

      I don’t understand your enthusiasm for criticising all the people who give up so much time to volunteer for the Faversham Society, the Town Council (yes, they are unpaid volunteers too, as you ought to know – some of them with full-time jobs to juggle as well), the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and the Faversham Creek Consortium. Just to take the Consortium, it’s absurd to dismiss its achievements in forcing KCC to face up to the need to do something about the bridge and to commit £400k in its forward budget. It was the Consortium too which persuaded Medway Ports to introduce automatic sluicing and to do work on the sluice gates and paddles. Of course, it’s frustrating that more hasn’t been achieved but, as a recent Chair of the Trust and proponent of the shipwright apprenticeship scheme, you should know better than most how difficult it can be, in the real world, to make the progress you’d really like to make. As for the Consortium’s recent AGM, which you dismiss without even having been there, the presentations by Anne Salmon and Chris Wright at least were very informative. (The presentations are on the Consortium’s website, http://www.swale.gov.uk/faversham-creek-consortium which I notice isn’t provided as a link on either the Trust’s or this website.)

      Why you should think that ‘your’ volunteers are different in kind is beyond me. The only difference perhaps is that some of them don’t have the luxury of being able to ignore inconvenient restrictions such as planning law or the provisions regarding the preparation of neighbourhood plans.

      To describe people as ‘gatekeepers and secret merchants’ is just offensive and silly. There is a huge amount of information available on the various websites. (I wish, as a member, that I could find minutes of the Trust’s meetings, or even summaries, on its website!) And to describe an elected Swale Borough Councillor as ‘unelected, unremovable’ is very odd!

      Your last paragraph simply confirms my worst fears about the direction in which the Creek ‘lobby’ appears to be going. The Creek isn’t the sole preserve of maritime enthusiasts. It’s for everyone in Faversham and for visitors to the town, including walkers, cyclists, bird watchers and people who just want to have a drink or a meal beside the Creek etc. And, yes, one or two sites can probably be used for new housing, of which there is an acute shortage and some will have to be found in Faversham. I don’t see that these things are necessarily incompatible with having maritime-related activities, which aren’t going to be extensive in this day and age.

      Reply
      1. Visions of a Creek

        Sorry Brian, our mistake. The consortium is now on the LINKS page. People who were at the last AGM may wish to take up your invitation to comment on the draft minutes.

  6. Harold Goodwin

    I have not yet seen the film but as you know I contributed.

    There has been a consistent failure to consult the residents of Faversham and far too much secrecy, The way that the business of Faversham Creek Consortium is conducted and the secrecy of FEP causes considerable frustration and creates the impression of cosy relationships with developers.

    Unless there is a much more open consultation process, one in which people feel that their voice is being heard and attended to there is a real risk that the referendum will be lost – a tragic failure of political leadership. One which will seriously damage Faversham irreparably. .

    The Mayor’s recent interventions have been helpful – there needs to be much more open and inclusive debate and an end to the secrecy which creates so much anger and dissent.

    The remedy is in your hands – consult openly and transparently … and we could have a good Neighbourhood Plan.
    Harold Goodwin

    Reply
    1. Brian Caffarey

      A response to Harold Goodwin’s post of 8 May: Where is the secrecy? There’s a huge amount of information available on the Neighbourhood Plan, Consortium and other web pages. Plus we’ve had the exhibition a year ago and the workshop in November and, of course, other meetings and plenty of debate in the newspapers.

      Reply
      1. Hilary Whelan

        1. Putting public information on websites and telling people they can go and find it is not enough.
        2. The steering group minutes are indicative, not informative. I have professional experience of information mining, and even I find them impenetrable, so heaven help the average citizen. They are written as internal minutes, not for public consumption – and they are published far too late.
        3. Information is not consultation. There needs to be a continuous feedback loop.
        4. One thing the steering group minutes do make clear is that the group has been aware of its failure to communicate since late 2011, but did nothing about it for an entire year. It was nevertheless blindly steaming ahead with the intention of having the Plan drawn up in Jan/Feb 2013, until it was forced to accept the need for more consultation and to extend the timetable.
        5. One public exhibition in 19 months is not an impressive tally, and for this to qualify as a consultation there must be proper feedback: not only what people said (finally published, after public complaints, 8 months later) but also how the results were analysed and interpreted, and what has been done in response – this has never been published.
        6. Will everyone please stop claiming that the November 2012 stakeholder workshop was a public consultation. 99% of people in Faversham knew nothing about it and most still don’t. Participants are constrained from speaking about it because it was held under Chatham House rules, which may be appropriate for closed negotiations and conflict resolution, but not for a public consultation which must, by definition, be public.
        7. Other meetings? There was a presentation at a Local Engagement Forum – when were the others?
        8. The communications strategy, having finally emerged, seems primarily concerned with process and documentation to demonstrate to the independent inspector that consultation has taken place. It is not about open engagement and getting people actively involved.
        9. The steering group cannot take credit for the “debate” in the local press. This was initiated by dissatisfied residents, and the steering group was slow to engage.

        If, instead of trying to defend the indefensible, the steering group were to admit that public relations are not hunky-dory, and instead of turning to external consultants, were to seek co-operation from the public, then true engagement might be possible. But there are no signs of opening up.

        This shouldn’t be a battleground, but it will be unless the steering group and other members of the establishment stop treating concerned residents as the enemy, and start to actively* welcome wider involvement and a greater diversity of ideas. It does seem that the Mayor, at least, understands this, but I’m not sure how deeply the message has penetrated.

        When, at the creek consortium AGM in March, Nigel Kay blamed the steering group’s failure to communicate on lack of resources, members of the audience offered to help. He said that was a good idea. That’s the last we’ve heard of it.

        In the last published minutes of the steering group (4 April) it says: “Members were interested in the different websites being publicised. [Including this one, presumably.] It was agreed they could be helpful information conduits and should be used to update readers on progress or to pose questions.” – but there is no suggestion of using them to learn from, or cooperate with, things that other people are doing and saying.

        * Telling people “if you’ve got something to say you can write to the secretary of the steering group” does not constitute actively welcoming involvement. People who have been writing letters for years and been ignored have utterly lost faith in the process.

      2. Brian Caffarey

        Hilary, whenever I respond to someone else’s post I get a response from you! Incidentally, am I right in thinking that you are also posting as ‘Standard Quay’, judging by the frequent references to flood designation, and ‘Voices of a Creek’?

        I asked Harold about ‘secrecy’. Your response is almost entirely about consultation, which is not the same thing. I thought we’d already agreed that consultation to date hadn’t been good enough but it is clearly improving. However, your expectations are frankly unrealistic and wouldn’t be met by a Government Department with a large number of staff, let alone a town council with two part-time administrative members of staff and ad hoc support.

      3. Hilary Whelan

        In reply to Brian Caffarey’s comments: 1. I don’t comment every time you respond to someone else, but would it matter if I did? Anyone is entitled to reply to any post or comment. That’s the whole point of this website, and one that you have taken full advantage of. 2. I am not posting as Standard Quay, and I have no idea who is. If the same thing is said by different people, then perhaps the response should be ‘maybe they have a point’, rather than ‘it’s a conspiracy’. 3. Yes, I do also post as ‘Visions of a Creek’ (I presume that’s what you mean, not ‘Voices’) since I’m one of the people who administer the website. It says that on the ABOUT page, so no-one should be surprised. 4. You seem to have missed the point that I and others are making: we recognise the limitations of the town council, and are suggesting that they shouldn’t be trying to do everything themselves and end up doing it badly. Residents will contribute if they’re allowed to.

    1. Visions of a Creek Post author

      Thank YOU Peter and all the rest of your team for making these screenings possible! People like you, and your wonderful cinema, are what Faversham’s all about!

      Reply
  7. Griselda Mussett

    This excellent film comprehensively lists the reasons why people in Faversham are so frustrated by the process which is supposedly giving us our new local plan. There is a lot to be angry about, but the tone of the film and the interviews is very British and polite. However, the message is clear enough. For some strange reason, the self-appointed powers-that-be have turned their backs on the creek and are basing all their hopes on property developers building lots of smart houses and flats. We all know that new homes are needed – but our emerging Local Plan says it’s just fine to put these new homes on the old boatyards. People in Faversham want the boatyards to be used for boat-building and repair, thereby preserving knowledge and skills and training up the new generations. It would also bring tourism and business to the whole town. When will the plan-writers listen? We do NOT like what they are saying, or the huge sums they are spending on endless reports. We want the bridge in operation, the dredging done, the wharves back in use, and the barges back in the town centre.

    Reply
    1. Mike Cosgrove

      Griselda I agree with much of what you want, especially the bridge etc. Mike’s film is in the Ken Loach tradition, not wholly accurate, taking a partial view but a good piece of cinema. I am suprised there is no mention of footpaths and quite surprised that The Faversham Society is so heavily criticised,I think unfairly.
      The big question is what is your solution to the issue of landowners who own the land and want planning permissions, and have a right to appeal if refused? Last week I met again with Medway Ports about the bridge and gates

      .

      Reply
      1. Standard Quay

        Dear Mike Cosgrove
        I can tell you what you don’t do when faced by the loss of a fragile maritime working environment. You don’t look at it and think how can we help increase the commercial value of the land by removing the flood risk designation which kept it as maritime use only.

        You don’t, when faced by the necessity of making your emerging developer led plan fit the NPPF go through this thought process:

        “Oh dear, our plan has to fit the Local Plan in order to be achievable, but it doesn’t. I know, we’ll look at how we can change the existing Local Plan. Oh, but the policies in the Local Plan that relate to the Creek do actually fit with the new National Planning Policy Framework, how very inconvenient. That makes it much more difficult to make our plan fit into the scheme of things. What shall we do now? I know, we;ll have to say our hands are tied and make everyone get into a flap about the NPPF even though it wasn’t a threat to the Creek before we started this Neighbourhood Plan thing and then no one will notice we’ve made a bit of a hash of this.”

        In the meanitme, your fragile maritime working heritage gets swallowed up by development and none of it is anyone’s fault. Maybe that isn’t what has happened. But that’s how it looks to me.

        Why is there no mention of Standard Quay as a working boatyard in the Fullwood Report, which is the basis of this whole mess? If it had been stressed that it was a successful working environment this development proposal would not have a leg to stand on since it would have been clear that this bit of the Creek was already being regenerated successfully and with huge local community support.

      2. Jill holder

        Apart from the wonderful efforts and support of Mr Percival, the Fav Soc seems to me to have become completely lost in its objectives, and its passion. Between the public approval of the ghastly Ordnance Wharf application by Anne Salmon speaking, as was understood even by the visitors from Lenham standing next to me, as a planner within the Fav Soc and witnessed by a room full of people, to the complete lack of barges in their current brochure, and then on to their lack of any objection or representationat the site meeting it seems that this fine and noble society has become nothing more than a shop.
        Worse it is my belief, that due to its history as a knowledgeable and trustworthy authority it has become a danger to the very things that its founder members so believed in.
        They should also be aware that these are the feelings of many of the residents. Not everyone has the time or inclination to write. But they DO talk. At dinner, in the Market Place over coffee, in the pub. . .

    2. Jill holder

      Hear, hear!Apart from the wonderful efforts and support of Mr Percival, the Fav Soc seems to me to have become completely lost in its objectives, and its passion. Between the public approval of the ghastly Ordnance Wharf application by Anne Salmon speaking, as was understood even by the visitors from Lenham standing next to me, as a planner within the Fav Soc and witnessed by a room full of people, to the complete lack of barges in their current brochure, and then on to their lack of any objection or representationat the site meeting it seems that this fine and noble society has become nothing more than a shop.
      Worse it is my belief, that due to its history as a knowledgeable and trustworthy authority it has become a danger to the very things that its founder members so believed in.
      They should also be aware that these are the feelings of many of the residents. Not everyone has the time or inclination to write. But they DO talk. At dinner, in the Market Place over coffee, in the pub. . .

      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