The consultation on the pre-submission draft of the Town Council’s Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan starts today (19 May) and runs for six weeks until 30 June.
The plan, with details of consultation events and how to respond, can be found here.
It is vital to the future of the Creek that everyone makes the effort to look at the proposals and complete the Survey. This is the last chance to affect the outcome of the Neighbourhood Plan.
There seem to be a number of myths around currently about the possible future state of the Creek and the need for dredging, published in correspondence in the local press. This article may clear up some of the facts and issues of concern and offers a comment on the current priorities.
The Creek was dredged by Medway Ports in 2012, from the Bridge down to Ironwharf. The Turning circle between Standard Quay and the Bridge was widened and the gut was widened. The navigable condition of the creek is now more than adequate for the traffic that uses it.
Unfortunately, the sluice gates have been out of action for some months due to lack of maintenance, but that is being resolved now, with a local person volunteering to clear the blocked valve that controls the opening at low water and keep an eye on the operation.
More important, a licence to carry out Maintenance dredging of the whole Creek, is being applied for by this Trust. The annual limits of this licence are sufficient to maintain an adequate navigation.
It has been suggested recently that, without the Neighbourhood Plan as currently proposed in draft, the Creek would not be dredged and would become silted up. As you can see above, there is no connection between the Plan and the planned licenced dredging, and our ability to use affordable local resources to carry out that dredging as required.
There is also a perception that more dredging is needed to reduce flooding on the highest and surge tides. Unfortunately, as the Environment Agency has made clear, no amount of dredging will reduce the level of the tide. This is entirely controlled by the level of the water in the North Sea and the Thames Estuary, at any state of the tide and weather. It can never be lower than that.
However, what is noticeable is the way in which flood water does not recede with the ebb-tide; it becomes trapped on land for various reasons, making the misery longer and damage worse. These failures are man made, and the various agencies responsible need to be pursued to fix them. Where water should simply pour back into the Creek when the level drops very rapidly after the turn of the tide, and it does not, then that needs documenting and the cause identified, and the responsible agency forced to fix it. This should be done with the support of the Town and Swale Council, and its councillors.
The only way to stop flooding is by creating one or more barriers to the water; the simplest being a bund around individual or groups of houses, and some way of preventing water spilling around from behind. These defences are all possible, but sandbagging on the day, is largely inadequate. Even preventing drains from backing up into houses is possible, though the authorities may be reluctant to cover the cost; insurance companies might be more interested if it prevented repeat claims; that is, if further insurance is still possible.
It seems unfair that with all the effort that goes into the Neighbourhood Plan to build new houses on the flood plain, very little goes into championing the solutions to the flood problems of the existing residents. Very few councillors bothered to turn up to a recent presentation by the Environment Agency, organised by Brents Community Association and this Trust, on the future of flood prevention in Faversham.
The Neighbourhood Plan solution for mitigating the effects of flooding is to build Tall Houses on Stilts, with the flooding areas underneath used for virtually un-insurable activities and property; cars, business equipment, shops and stock.
There is really no excuse for perpetuating this formula as a solution; we are not so short of available land in this area that we have to build Houses on Stilts.
However, the NPPF bogeyman and Council Rules are being fully exploited to ensure the success of the developments, to the benefit of the speculators, and the potential future misery of the residents. What’s the betting that there is no mention of the regular, or recent, flooding on the Creek in the sales blurb for these exclusive Creekside properties.
On the other hand, if the recent claim in the local press, that these houses will mostly be bought by boat-owners, was actually true, then it might be an attractive proposition to build them as Boat Houses… now that would certainly respect the Creek as a Creek!
I make no apologies for also reproducing an updated, related, editorial here, from last June after Alan Staley, Boatbuilder at Chambers Wharf, won the Craft Skills Award for ‘Encouraging Craft Skills in the Workplace, from the same organisation [Heritage Crafts Assoc.] that awarded Sixer his for volunteering.
It is interesting to summarise the recent past, the current, and the developing crafts and skills presence on the Creek;
Ironwharf supports several self-employed boatbuilders, and a Chandlery, and accommodates large craft, including Thames Barges, alongside the Quay and in their floating dock for repair. It is a rare reasonably priced onshore store for dozens of craft, where owners can repair and maintain them.
Chambers Wharf is Alan Staley, Boatbuilder, with a slip and moorings for small to medium sized craft, and a history of successful projects; famously quoted above, on UNDINA for Griff Rhys Jones.
Standard Quay, over a period of 18 years, up to 2011, supported up to 10 craftsmen, and many others, several of whom were highly respected Shipwrights, and included a nascent apprentice scheme, a Block Maker, a complete £m1.4 restoration of a historic craft, but more importantly, developed by a knowledgeable, co-operative and supportive management style and with resources that attracted large traditional craft to the Quay, for berthing, maintenance and restoration.
Swan Quay has been the home of the Sail Maker, Wilkinson Sails, for several years, where they have trained young sailmakers,.
Faversham Creek Trust is developing a maritime trades centre at the Purifier, with a specific mandate to develop the training of Apprentice Shipwrights; it is also home for two craftsmen; one displaced by a developer from Standard quay.
Another important near-creek success story is Creek Creative, maybe not maritime, but certainly craft and small business oriented and supportive.
And yet, some still argue that because there is a lack of maritime businesses rushing to take up the available spaces on the Creek now, the only viable way forward is for these spaces to be given over to speculators and developers of upmarket exclusive housing, or to convert the simple quayside workshops and storage sheds in to bijou restaurants, or worse, museums of the maritime glory already forced away.
These are the same people who flatly refuse to investigate any alternative economic case, and have failed to consider intelligently, a major positive economic report freely presented to them, because it told them something that they did not want to hear.
They are wrong, of course; if we ignore the history of success above, by failing to build on it and create the waterside space needed for its future, then we must all carry the blame in the years to come. What is needed now for the success of that future, is the time to develop small businesses, supported by an infrastructure of affordable space and a network of complementary crafts and businesses.
That is sustainability. That is what the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development quoted in the National Planning Policy Framework is all about. It is certainly not about banging up a few more houses on every available tired industrial site, extracting some small penalty, or is it a bribe, ostensibly for the benefit of the community, which will disappear into some distant pot.
Amongst the site owners, are long standing businesses that have prospered in Faversham, but who, due to changes in the commercial opportunities, have been left with sites that need regeneration; they are not developers themselves, and generally have been in no hurry to sell off to speculators.
It is to these owners that we should turn, in humility, ask them to remember when and how they started, and ask for their support for the future of the Creek as a thriving busy waterway, with relevant businesses, and community areas. That is the compromise that we seek. They should be reminded that the case for developing maritime businesses on the creek has been researched and proven.
Morrisons took the risk when they agreed to give the Purifier to this Trust, a six month old and unknown group then, but with an interesting proposition about the maritime future of the Creek and training of shipwright apprentices. It took two years for the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group to accept the Trust as a representative body with a significant membership.
As Arthur Percival reminds us, Henry Hatch gave his fortune to the benefit of the Town, and the Creek – not a Street. Surely Henry would approve of the development of the Creek and Creekside for the sustainable benefit of maritime trade and employment.
At its meeting on 25 March, the steering group voted to approve a first draft of the Neighbourhood Plan which, for a small number of sites (Ordnance Wharf, the Oil Depot and the Coach Depot) included alternative options – either predominantly housing, as proposed by the respective landowners/developers and supported by the steering group majority, or industrial/training/community use as proposed in the Business Case and by the Faversham Creek Trust and the Brents Community Association, in line with feedback from previous consultations. Discussion of alternative options for Swan Quay was deferred until the following meeting on 1 April.
At the April 1 meeting, diverging from the published agenda, steering group member Andrew Osborne proposed, seconded by Councillor Mike Cosgrove, that all decisions to include alternative options for site uses should be overturned. Votes were taken site-by-site and all alternatives were deleted except for Ordnance Wharf.
Mr Osborne said it would be open to anyone to put forward alternative proposals during the consultation process.
The revised draft of the Neighbourhood Plan will be put before Faversham Town Council for approval at its next meeting on Monday 7 April. There will be an opportunity for questions from the public before the meeting.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ASK WHY THEY WENT THROUGH THE 25 MARCH CHARADE AND WHAT POSSIBILITY IS THERE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT PLAN BEING ACCEPTED AT THE NEXT CONSULTATION, GIVEN THE VOTING RECORD OF THE STEERING GROUP.
Since 2011 the Faversham Creek Trust has been working towards a regeneration plan that focuses on the upper part of Faversham Creek above the Brents Swing Bridge. The plan was first submitted to the Local Plan forum of the Creek Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group in November 2012. What appears here is a brief overview, revised for submission to the Faversham Town Council in November 2013.
We believe there is a unique opportunity for change in the centre of this historic town with significant economic and social benefits for residents and visitors alike. Our plan is based on the creation of a viable maritime economic facility, with workshops, moorings and a training school to serve the existing fleet of traditional vessels in the Thames Estuary.
The plan will be a team effort, with combined effort from several stakeholders including a charitable trust, a community association, identified private investors, and local and regional authorities.
The key elements
1. The regeneration of Ordnance Wharf as a single-storey marine workshop with office and community centre with access from Flood Lane, in conformity with the current local plan, the existing conservation area, and the plan now under preparation by the Brents Community Association. A potential purchaser has been confirmed subject to Ordnance Wharf not being re- zoned for housing. Implementation mid-2015.
2. The existing restored Purifier Building to be a training centre for students and apprentices to be run in conjunction with the Ordnance Wharf workshop. The five year plan envisages 18 students with an eventual capacity for 36 students per year. Implementation late 2015. There are also two specialist workshop units and a room for community activities.
3. The restoration of the BMM Weston Creek frontage outside the existing car park with the co- operation of the owner, on a long lease in exchange for the restoration cost. The resulting wharf (with back filling of a new piled frontage from the waterside) will provide moorings for up to ten sailing barges and smacks and a green amenity space along the current footpath. A private company will meet the cost of the operation to commence when the KCC has replaced the current swing bridge.
4. The replacement of the existing swing bridge by a new, opening bridge – by Kent County Council as a collaborative project in partnership with the Borough Council and the Town Council.
5. The repair or replacement of the sluice gates by Medway Ports and their subsequent management and dredging by the Faversham Creek Trust under licence by the authority.
The Lifting Bridge opening at High Tide for an awaiting barge, with another waiting to come out.
These objectives are in line with feedback received from the May 2012 Creek Neighbourhood Plan exhibition and the June 2013 exhibition, and also with feedback from the Urban Initiatives consultation in 2009. They conform to Neighbourhood Plan objectives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15.
The benefits
The benefits arising from the regeneration are:
Economic: the generation of new business turnover in marine workshops, training school and mooring fees, with a total annual value of £425,000 excluding indirect benefits.
Job creation: the plan will create at least 50 new jobs including students and apprentices, but excluding tourism spin-off related employment in the town.
Social: the regeneration of the Creek basin would remove an eyesore from the centre of the town. It replaces a derelict and unsafe area adjoining a public footpath by a safe waterfront and public space with a view over barges and the town skyline. The repaired or replaced sluice gates would permit water retention in the basin and therefore a safe water area for community activities, sea scouts and sail training not normally available in a tidal creek.
Heritage: the plan as a whole provides a significant location in the Purifier Building and Ordnance Wharf workshops for a living maritime heritage centre where schoolchildren and visitors to the town can see shipwrights at work and engage with Faversham’s history.
Visitor numbers: the annual number of visitors to Faversham (15,000 in 2011) would rise by at least 25% as a consequence of a revitalised basin. The experience of Maldon with its smaller resident population but a fleet of ten Thames Barges and 30,000 visitors supports this contention.
Implementation
We envisage that construction could begin in 2015, preceded by a planning application in 2014. The continued commitment of the KCC to a working bridge to the basin and confirmation of the existing zoning are key conditions to the success of the plan.
Board of Trustees, Faversham Creek Trust – 25 November 2013
I am writing this email to all members of Faversham Town Council to express my deep dismay and fear for the future of Faversham Creek, as proposed by the Faversham Creek Steering Group at their meeting last week. Unfortunately I cannot attend this evening’s Town Council Meeting, when the Faversham Creek Steering Group’s proposals will be discussed, as I must be elsewhere. However, I hope that you will take the views expressed in this email into account.
For three decades Swale Borough Council has held the line for Faversham against excessive housing development along the Creek. They have not always been successful, and their efforts have been overturned on appeal with seriously detrimental results, but at least they have tried. In the most recent adopted Local Plan of 2008, Swale still maintained that there should be no more housing development along the Creek, not least due to flood risk.
When Faversham Town Council was given responsibility for producing a Creek Neighbourhood Plan, under the Localism Bill, many Faversham residents had high hopes that FTC would be able to follow the clear line taken for so long by SBC, evidently approved of by many electors, by continuing to resist the pressure for unsuitable development and by promoting sustainable uses for many of the properties along the Creek. This seemed like our chance at last to achieve a future for Faversham which reflected our maritime heritage and our aspirations for sustainable development.
Unfortunately it appears to many of us that the Faversham Creek Steering Group capitulated to the wishes of the developers from the very beginning. The membership of the Group was drawn largely from the Faversham Creek Consortium, first established by Swale Borough Council in late 2005. Representatives on the Consortium and the Group included people who, we thought, had the best interests of the town at heart, for example the Faversham Society and Faversham Municipal Charities.
However, over eight years the Consortium gradually lost the trust of many Faversham people – as anyone who attended the AGMs could see and hear. From early on the Consortium seemed to favour housing development over all other possible uses of the land, and this preference was carried over into the Steering Group. It is no wonder that there are suspicions, clearly voiced at last Tuesday’s meeting, that not all members of the Creek Steering Group are entirely unbiased.
The various options presented by the Steering Group at the June exhibition claimed to represent a selection of alternatives, yet the proposals for each site were not different from each other at all, but were all remarkably similar. All showed ‘mixed use’ of housing and ‘employment’, so that ‘employment’ use could be positioned on the ground floor where the flood risk exists, and the housing then had to be built to a high elevation to pay for the significant amount of piling required and the cost of providing ‘employment’ use on the ground floor. The views of the community that had been expressed at the previous consultation were ignored, and the views expressed following this ‘consultation’ were overruled.
My understanding of the proposals presented at the June 2013 consultation, from discussions with Steering Group representatives in attendance, was that the drawings were developed by the Steering Group itself. Yet when requests were made at last Tuesday’s meeting for the Steering Group to explain exactly what was meant by ‘viable’ use of land, and for an alternative proposal of a Community Boatyard on Ordnance Wharf, the request was thrown back at the Faversham Creek Trust to present a proposal. This was in spite of the fact that they have only recently been invited to join the Steering Group, they probably have little of the information available to the Steering Group, and they were excluded from the discussion of Ordnance Wharf as having ‘an interest’. Surely the Steering Group itself should have – and still should – researched and proposed alternative uses for each site, not just bowed down to the developers’ desire for profit through housing.
The views of local residents have been strongly expressed against housing on both Ordnance Wharf and Swan Quay. Ordnance Wharf represents a real opportunity to bring the Basin back into active use, as a destination for local people and tourists, for waterside activities and employment such as a community boatyard. Swan Quay, too, is a very historic and highly important site for the town, yet the only proposals presented by and to the Steering Group are for completely inappropriate blocks of flats.
This month there have been normal spring tides which have risen within a foot of the edge of Swan Quay and which have flooded Town Quay. How much piling would be necessary to make Swan Quay able to support the proposed blocks of flats? Look at the piling that took place along Provender Walk, Waterside Close and Faversham Reach. Is that what the Council wants to happen at Swan Quay? It was stated at last Tuesday’s meeting that the Environment Agency has declared that a flood barrier would be required before development of this site. What would that mean to the historic quay? The area proposed for development is quite small. How much do you want to see the existing historic buildings like the Old Chandlery, the Boxing Club and TS Hasard dwarfed by three large blocks? What view do you want from the Front Brents? Where would the residents of these flats park their cars? Swan Quay has the only slipway along the length of the Creek. Surely it would be more appropriate to continue the existing, viable business of sail making and maritime trades in this place and put housing elsewhere.
The case for continued maritime use of Standard Quay has been eloquently expressed by others on many occasions. I concur fully with the opinion that Building No. 1 and others along the Creek side should revert to their previous use for repairing and restoring historic and other vessels.
Portsmouth has just been granted £4m by the Heritage Lottery Fund to develop the old dockyard for businesses and apprenticeships for the repair and restoration of historic vessels, with media attention focusing on the imminent loss of these skills if action is not immediately taken. While Faversham could not expect such largesse, surely it is not beyond the imagination of the Steering Group and FTC to consider applying for funding to help with developing our historic waterfront in order to benefit and enrich future generations, not just a few property speculators?
Finally, if the battle to retain at least parts of the Creek is lost to the developers, how on earth can Faversham Town Council expect Swale Borough Council to continue to hold the line on other limits to the development of the town, such as ‘South of the A2’? If we cannot protect our own interests, why should we expect our Borough Council to protect them?
I hope that Faversham Town Council will draw back from these potentially devastating proposals before it is too late. Perhaps it is time to review the long-standing membership of the Steering Group, not just add a few ‘lone voices in the wilderness’ to the entrenched views of the members. Please look at the Creek again, please start the review all over again if necessary. Whatever the cost, it will be small beer compared with the total loss to future generations that is at risk if the current proposals are carried through.
Over 80 members of the public arrived last night at the Guildhall, to hear the debate on agenda item 6; the minutes of the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group meeting held last week, and specifically to approve the Land Uses for Sites and Streetscape Requirements document.
Before the meeting could start it was announced that the number of people upstairs in the Guildhall is limited to 50 by the Fire Regulations. Recognising that democracy would not be served by throwing out half the public, the Mayor offered the option of holding a special meeting at a larger venue, probably the Alexander Centre, at the earliest date possible.This was accepted, and agreed by the councillors. So wait for a further announcement for the that event.
Thankyou David, for resolving a difficult situation.
Reproduced below is a letter that our Chairman, Chris Wright, sent to the Mayor before the meeting ;
Dear Councillor Simmons,
FAVERSHAM CREEK NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
We understand that the proposals set out in the document ‘Land uses for sites and streetscape requirements’ are to be put to the Town Council for approval on Monday 21 October.
A key aim of the Creek Neighbourhood Plan is to stimulate regeneration of the area. The Council will be aware that at present, there is one major project already contributing to the regeneration process. It is one to which 500 townspeople have given their support, and it is based on the Purifier building at the head of the creek. But the proposals contained in the ‘Land uses’ document, particularly as they relate to Ordnance Wharf, rather than supporting this process will damage it.
The document addresses a number of sites around the creek at present designated as industrial in land use planning terms. On the grounds that commercial uses are ‘not viable’ or ‘not deliverable’ it recommends re-designating them as residential. By doing this, it drives up land prices and excludes other uses. It is a self-fulfilling argument.
For pedestrians, housing on the creek waterfront is sterile, characterless, and not much fun to walk around. It contributes nothing to the sense of place that makes Faversham unique. A bolder plan could generate sustainable income from tourism and marine craft, building on the Town’s historical role as a Cinque Port Limb.
The proposals are strongly opposed by local residents and are likely to fail when put to referendum next year. If people are consulted, they expect their views to be taken into account, not ignored. Finally, it is a stated goal of the Steering Group that all riparian owners of the sites concerned be consulted as part of the planning process. No such consultation has yet taken place with the Faversham Creek Trust. We therefore ask the Town Council to refer the document back for further discussion and amendment.
Faversham Creek Trust 