The Truth of Trust’s View on the Creek Plan


Much of what has been stated recently here by Brian Caffarey about the Faversham Creek Trust’s view of the future of the Creek is untrue – see Comments on the report on the LEF.  Both the Trust’s original detailed response to the Vanguard Project’s presentation last May, and a recent short version prepared for the November Neighbourhood Plan Workshop, set out clearly the Trust’s view about ALL the sites on the Creek, so it is disingenuous to claim that the Trust has no interest or view other than the Purifier.

It is revealing to look at how Creekside development has evolved in recent years.  75% of the Creekside waterfront below the bridge has already been allocated to housing; that leaves 25% to be split as mixed development; at 50:50 that is just 12.5% for employment, commercial, industrial or leisure, maritime related or otherwise. Sustainable?

Whilst many people, including Trust Members, would like to see the remaining sites reserved solely for employment and leisure based activities, the Trust’s formal view has always been to accept a mixed development overall, subject to generic and site specific constraints. That does not necessarily mean mixed development on each and every site, and certainly the Purifier and Ordnance are exceptions: the Trust has no option but to oppose the plans for Ordnance to protect its own Plans and investment.  But this is not the sole focus of the Trust’s interest. The Trust, alongside the Consortium, has put much work into finding a solution to the need for a lifting Bridge; all that is on public record.

It is true that the Trust has not expressed a view on the issue of extended footpaths, other than ensuring that public access is built into any future Creekside development, but the Trust can assure Brian and the Creek Planners, that it fully supports whatever plans they have in this regard. However, this was a problem created by Developers, the ones who ‘have rights’ – whilst ignoring their responsibilities. It seems hard to argue that the very exclusivity marketed by developers, and paid for by residents, should be claimed back without some mitigation or compensation.

Finally, the Trust’s views are by no means the only ones that count.  It is local residents who will ultimately determine the fate of the Neighbourhood Plan, and without their support, the Plan may be rejected at the forthcoming referendum on the Ordnance Wharf issue alone.  It would be helpful if the Vanguard Steering group would clear the air by publishing the results of the consultation survey carried out last May, and the current status of the Plan, so that all can see how the matter stands.  It is the detail that everyone wants to see.


2 responses to “The Truth of Trust’s View on the Creek Plan

  1. I’m surprised to see the claim that I’ve lied about the Trust’s views on the future of the Creek. If people re-read my original post, they will see that all I did was to warn against the danger of the Trust’s leaders encouraging people to take too narrow a view of the issues and encouraging a negative stance towards the Neighbourhood Plan process. I did not claim that the Trust had no interest in anything other than the Purifier.

    The rest of my comments were in response to the views of those like Sue Cooper who oppose any new residential development on any Creek site.

    I welcome the statement that the Trust supports mixed development and hope that the Trust’s spokespersons will make the Trust’s position clear in future public discussion and in other public pronouncements.

    Brian Caffarey

  2. I very much appreciate the opportunity this site presents for debate of an open and honest nature on the future of Faversham Creek. I think it would be helpful if we could all be allowed to present our views and allow these to be freely interpreted by readers without others publishing what they have understood those views to be. I strongly believe that it is important to prioritise maritime use on the Creek. Currently all available development sites are being blocked for this use because of the possibility of planning pemission for other uses being granted in the future. I fully appreciate the difficulties of altering this situation but believe it is a battle worth fighting. I took part in the process of drawing up the 2008 area Action Plan for the Creek and I would like to see the sentiments expressed there strengthened by this current process. From what I have seen so far
    this is sadly not happening.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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