Author Archives: Faversham Creek Trust


Songs of Sailing and the Sea – Sat 1st Nov


Local Artists showing in the Purifier


Faversham Creek Trust is really delighted to host a show by ‘Diversi’, a group of local artists, as part of the East Kent Artists Open Studios 2014.

The Trust’s Purifier Building at Morrisons on the creekside will be open each Saturday and Sunday from 11 to 5pm for all three weekends starting 18/19 October through till 1/2 November.

The artists are Susanna Rosti Rossini, Siobhan Timoney and Kim Barnicott from Faversham, Pat Wilson Smith from Canterbury, and Laurie Harpum and Deborah Pugh from Sheppey. All the works will be for sale.

Griselda Mussett from the Trust said ‘It’s great seeing the Purifier Building being used by the community like this and we hope lots of people will call in to see the show.’





Many of you will know that at the meeting last Tuesday, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group signed off the final draft of the Creek Neighbourhood Plan. It is better than the original but there are some flaws, the most crucial being that residential development on Ordnance Wharf is still permitted.

Ordnance Wharf stands at the focal point of the Creek Basin where the centre of the marine hub will be when the bridge opens. A residential element would contribute little to the housing shortage and would severely hamper the Purifier project. The Council’s consultant appears to believe that housing, a community centre, and shipbuilding can all be accommodated on one small site, and seems not to recognise that a designation that permits housing will raise the commercial value of the land to a level that effectively prices out all other uses.

So as it stands, the Plan puts much of the work carried out by volunteers on the project, together with the contributions of well-wishers throughout the Town, at risk. Would it not be better if the Council supported their efforts? What would it cost them to amend the designation for one site?

The Mayor has called an Extraordinary Meeting of the Town Council to approve the Plan. It will take place at 7 pm on Monday 13 October at the Queen Elizabeth grammar School. I know we all have other things to do, but this time the whole Town Council will be involved, and they can’t be wholly insensitive to the implications of what is being proposed.

The meeting will also consider the question of an opening bridge, which could unlock the potential of the Basin and increase the flow of private investment into the project. We don’t know what the Mayor is going to propose and it could be vital.

It is important that as many people as possible attend this meeting, to ensure that the Town Council understand that the issues are important to a broad cross-section of the residents of Faversham, regardless of their particular views.

Chris Wright  -  Chairman Faversham Creek Trust

Extraordinary Town Council Mtg at QE Monday 13th 7pm

This meeting is an Extraordinary meeting of the Faversham Town Council, at

the QE School, not the Guildhall

To consider the minutes of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group meetings held on 25 September and 7 October and its recommendations for the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan (minutes of 25 September attached; draft Plan and minutes of 7 October to follow).

To consider the future of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.

To consider the Creek Bridge.

The revised Draft Plan is on the previous post.

Tuesday’s Neighbourhood Plan Public Meeting at QE School

The venue for the NP meeting is now at the QE School.

The following revised documents are available for review, and will be discussed at that meeting.

7 October 2014 Agenda





English Heritage Award for the Purifier



Always good for volunteers to be recognised

for what they have achieved

Angel Heritage

Read the revised Neighbourhood Plan

On Thursday night, Richard Eastham of the Consultants Feria-Ubanism, presented their approach to the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan. The link below goes direct to their website and that Presentation. Unfortunately, without Richard’s commentary, it is not particularly meaningful.

 This is the Draft Revised Plan;    119_Q_140923_Revised-Plan

This is the introductory note to the revised Plan:

The plan has been revised in September 2014 and a draft is attached. This is still a “work in progress” and more needs to be done to refine the plan. The main changes made to the draft presented for Reg. 14 consultation earlier this year are as follows:

  • The amount of background and scene-setting text in the early sections has been reduced; the consultation history will be moved into the Consultation Statement.
  • A new section on “urban analysis” has been added as this assessment was previously absent. A better understanding of urban form is important as it will give a greater steer to how the individual sites should be developed. There now needs to be greater reference to how the redevelopment of each of the sites (sites 1 through to 12) should respond to this urban analysis.
  • A new “context” section combines constraints and opportunities into one section under the headings of “People, Places and Waterways” – this section will be illustrated with specific photos to explain the context more clearly.
  • The creek-wide policy section has been reordered to put heritage, design, community and business first four as these are the main areas of focus for the plan.
  • New design text and policy has been written as this was rather weak in the initial draft, with new DQ4 and DQ5 added. The policy code has changed to DQ for “Design Quality” – more positive than “Design Parameters” as previously.
  • The previous two options for Ordnance Wharf has been combined into a single policy reflecting common ground between the two previous A and B options – this seems to be the best approach as it reduces the policy to a set of shared objectives / common ground. Options are not suitable for adoption.
  • There has been a general editing and rewording of all the site-specific polices to remove the sense of prescription and instead shift it towards guidance. Previous version talked about “proposals” which is inappropriate for a neighbourhood plan. The plan should provide policy and guidance and the planning application process deals with proposals. New text places emphasis on the planning application process being an important stage to determine the appropriateness of uses, form, detail etc.
  • The plan needs a conclusion section to be added. This will need to deal with how the polices will be applied through the planning application process – again, to push more detailed consideration down the process.
  • Undesignated Heritage Assets – what is, what isn’t and why – will need to be dealt with in the plan in a much more direct way, with emphasis on the methodology used to make these designations.
  • There will be a general reformatting of the document layout to introduce more photographs and make the document more “visual” and therefore more engaging. The creek has a strong visual identity and the plan should celebrate this more.

Other comments

  • The existing policy text was very clearly written and in that respect is excellent. However, on the site specific policy it needs to become less specific as regard detailed designs provide guidance, not prescription.
  • The plan has not placed enough emphasis on understanding the current qualities and characteristics of the overall creek area. This has started to be rectified through the new urban analysis section. Without this “glue”, the series of site-specific policies risk making the plan feel somewhat fragmented and a no more than a collection of individual sites without any strong relationships between one another.
  • Why is the plan not dealing with the Morrison’s site? This development is real blight on the creek, with big, blank walls facing the water. The front door is on the wrong side. No matter how much good work goes into the Purifier and Ordnance Wharf redevelopments, unless this big, blank box is identified for change, the area will lack overlooking and activity. At the least, the neighbourhood plan should set out how the site should be redeveloped (i.e. activities facing the water) even if this is a longer term aspiration.
  • Designation of local green spaces appears absent yet there are numerous green spaces within the plan boundary that could benefit from such designation.
  • The introduction of diagrams and drawings to explain the design principles for each site will be explored. The more complex sites (such as BMMW, Swan Quay, Standard Quay and the collection of associated sites, e.g. oil and coach depot) will benefit most from this. The diagrams will need to set out views, edges, landmarks and so on make it clear how the various sites should be developed in a planning/design guidance sense, but not in a prescriptive sense.

    Richard Eastham

    Feria Urbanism | September 2014