fullwood report response for fct website… · web view · 2011-06-14in may 2011 we received a...

To: Swale Borough Council Planning Department, FAO Natalie Earl

From: Chris Berry & Hilary Whelan, creekside residents, Faversham

Re: Faversham Creek Area Action Plan REPORT BY TONY FULLWOOD ASSOCIATES, October 2010

PROCESS

In May 2011 we received a letter informing us, as Faversham Creek Stakeholders, of the existence of a report which was published six months earlier, and inviting comments by 24 June.

The report is stated to be a follow-up to the Urban Initiatives (UI) report published earlier in 2010. That document is so deeply flawed that it fatally undermines the legitimacy and credibility of any report based upon it. Our earlier responses to the UI study and report are attached: the general comments expressed in these attachments should be taken as applying equally to the Fullwood report.

It is not clear why, having spent a great deal of public money on one report, the council then found it necessary to commission another, and why we are only now being invited to comment on it. Nor is it clear whether the Fullwood report supersedes/overrides the UI report, or whether the UI report is still being taken seriously as a basis for planning decisions. The whole process has been wasteful, undemocratic and lacking in transparency.

CONTENT

The Fullwood report is more realistic and sensible, makes some good points, and sidesteps some of the sillier aspects of the UI report, but it adds very little of value. We do not believe that it represents the wishes of Faversham residents, businesses and creek users. In particular:

ANSWERING THE WRONG QUESTIONThis entire process was based on the planner-led question: (a) how can we squeeze money out of residential development to fund regeneration, and (b) how should we spend it? From the public’s point of view, the question is: (a) what do want to do with the creek, and (b) how can we raise the money? Neither of these studies makes a serious effort to research a broad range of potential funding sources – now, that would have been a genuinely useful exercise. As a result, they both put:

TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON HOUSINGAlthough there is less emphasis on large-scale housing developments than in the UI report, the Fullwood report still views housing development as a primary driver for regeneration. This is questionable with the state of the housing market now and for the foreseeable future, and in any case is not appropriate for Faversham creekside. The drivers here are maritime activity, heritage, tourism/leisure and employment/training. Housing will hinder rather than enhance these activities.

Chris Berry & Hilary Whelan, Faversham

/ii Fullwood report comments

TOO PRESCRIPTIVE We believe that the planning system should focus on providing:(a) infrastructure to encourage use of the creek, attract investment and create a demand for appropriate development. The report includes some infrastructural issues (see below), but many are touched on only tangentially (eg, there is still no serious consideration of traffic flows and parking).(b) a framework for any development, which indicates what is and is not acceptable. It should not be targeting buildings and sites for development, and certainly not – as in this report – without a sound business case: unless development is demand-led, it is likely to result in blocks of flats with vacant, boarded-up commercial units at street level. This is not what Faversham needs.

STANDARD QUAYStandard Quay is indeed a priority – but NOT as a prime site for property development. The barges, with their picturesque appearance, related activities and historical interest, are the star attraction – why else would anyone bother to go there? certainly not for the view of the unattractive housing development which the council allowed to be built on the opposite bank of the creek. With their associated jobs and training opportunities, the barges should be at the core of any regeneration plan. There are certainly opportunities for redevelopment at the rear of the site and at the old oil depot, and any realistic proposal which will preserve Standard House from further dilapidation should be considered – but appropriate commercial activities should be encouraged and must take priority over housing.

We endorse, with provisos, some aspects of the Fullwood report, which deal with infrastructure:

SIGNAGE We have met far too many people who live and work in Faversham but have never visited the creek: most of them have no idea where it is; some don’t even know it exists. And we regularly find ourselves giving directions to lost souls who have been wandering around in search of various creekside locations.

Signage from multiple points in the town centre with information panels, etc. is essential. But why does this have to await the conclusion of a long-drawn-out planning process? The Faversham Creek Consortium identified signage as a cheap ‘quick win’ more than five years ago, and has been calling for it repeatedly ever since, but still nothing happens. In its absence, we have an untidy jumble of private-enterprise signage (for Standard Quay, the Posilippo restaurant, etc.) cluttering up the pavements.

Just put up some signs. Do it now. Don’t agonise over getting it perfect, don’t spend a fortune on design consultants and logos. Just do it. How hard can it be?

FOOTPATHSYes: continuous, well-maintained footpaths on both sides of the creek, with links to the town centre and the Saxon Shore Way are a must-have. And no future creekside development, residential or commercial, must be allowed to privatise the waterfront.


/iii Fullwood report comments

PUBLIC SPACESYes also to the retention and expansion/improvement of public spaces, provided that:- they are not over-urbanised/over-designed/over-gentrified - they are well-maintained and serviced (with, for example, at least the same level of policing, cleaning and litter management as in the town centre)- public toilets are provided (not mentioned in either report).

CREEK NAVIGABILITY It is essential that the navigability of the creek should be improved and maintained. Unless this happens, everything else is irrelevant.

Get to grips with the silting problem, encourage visitors (on water or by foot), show them the way to the creek and provide something interesting for them to see and do when they get there. Businesses will develop to service their needs.

The Faversham Creek Consortium was founded in 2005. Since then, a large amount of time and hot air, and a great deal of public money, have been expended on determining the future of the creek. But in practical terms – apart from the de-silting experiments and work on the sluice gates, which are outside the council’s remit – nothing whatsoever has happened.

We are constantly told that no money is available for work which has widespread public support – yet curiously there seems to be a bottomless pit of funding for consultants and planning bureaucracy. No-one ever asks if we want our money spent in this way. We deplore the resources that have been squandered on these two reports, and fear that the unanswered questions within them may spawn yet more expensive and unproductive studies.

This has to stop. All future spending on Faversham Creek must be invested in infrastructure without further bureaucratic delays.

Chris Berry & Hilary WhelanJune 2011


ATTACHMENT 1: Comments on UI report, April 2010

To: Swale Borough Council

Re: Faversham Creekside Area Action Plan STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION & OPTIONS REPORT

We are not impressed with this report. We hope that future planning documents and decisions will not be based upon it or restricted to its limited view of the options available. It shows no real understanding of Faversham and its creek. It itemises the many constraints (but we knew about those already) then offers no solutions other than yet another round of costly consultations. Its proposals are unimaginative and largely unrealistic because of the unresolved constraints, and its main thrust is to give the green light to housing developments – which is not the priority expressed consistently by local people over the past five years through the forum of the Faversham Creek Consortium.

Specifically:

1 IT IS NOT TRULY REPRESENTATIVE

It is not clear how decisions were made about who should be consulted.

We are front-line ‘stakeholders’ – creekside residents who will be directly affected by any developments in this area – but we have no residents’ or management committee to represent our views, and we and our neighbours are thus excluded from the consultation process.

The number of households within and adjacent to the development area is fairly small. It would not have been difficult or prohibitively expensive to communicate with each of us, for example via leaflet drops or questionnaires. It would also have been easy to contact everyone on the Creek Consortium mailing list.

We also note that some creekside employers were consulted in their capacity as landowners – but were they consulted in their capacity as employers, and was any effort made to consult with their workforce? They are stakeholders too.

The Creek Team clearly put in a good deal of work, but apart from the initial ‘brainstorming’ sessions, the agenda was dictated not by them but by the consultants. In the ‘board game’ land use exercise, when the team chose not to do what was expected of them, the consultants effectively ignored their preferences and based the bulk of the report on their own preferred options.

Finally, the report has not been circulated or widely publicised, and even those few who are aware of it will find it difficult to obtain copies unless they have internet access and know where to look.

We hope that any future consultations will be more democratic.


/ii

2 IT PUTS THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE

The report acknowledges the many unknowns and constraints which will have to be resolved before any real progress can be made (navigability; flooding; drainage and sewage; transport; ground conditions; environmental concerns; archaeology, etc.) but then goes on regardless to produce detailed proposals. This seems to us to be a complete waste of the consultants’ time and our money. Until these determining factors are dealt with, what is the point in faffing about with the minutiae of where precisely to put an hotel?

It is suggested that an overarching plan is needed to avoid further ‘piecemeal’ development – but Faversham’s charm is the result of centuries of piecemeal development. A long-term planning ‘vision’ should surely be about establishing frameworks in which development (piecemeal or otherwise) can take place and investment can be encouraged: an enabling process rather than the prescriptive process we see here.

3 IT’S ALL ABOUT HOUSING

We searched through the Creek Team’s list of aspirations and ideas for what would make the creek more successful, but nowhere could we find the bit where they said ‘the thing we need most is lots more housing’. And yet the consultants’ preferred proposal envisages 372 new homes – and really not much else. There is reference to ‘mixed use’ developments, but in practice this means predominantly housing.

There will inevitably be some new housing within any new development project, but this is not the key objective for local people. The vision is all about ‘vibrancy’, but housing will not make a vibrant creekside. Take a walk around the recent creekside housing developments: there is nothing vibrant about them – especially Waterside and Faversham Reach, which actively exclude public access to the waterfront (we hope any future planning documents will at least ensure that this is never allowed in further developments).

Perhaps the main problem with this report is:

4 IT’S NOT ABOUT FAVERSHAM

The authors betray a metropolitan mindset (eg, references to Regents Park and Primrose Hill, which have no place in a report about and for Faversham) and a limited imagination. The project is seen as a generic piece of ‘urban regeneration’ (a euphemism for housing development and gentrification, with perhaps a bit of retail or tourism) and potential funding sources are viewed narrowly in this context.

The consultants have previously produced a similar report on Sittingbourne/Milton Creek. This area is within the Thames Gateway, where housing development is a priority. Faversham is not in the Thames Gateway and has very different characteristics and requirements, but the report shows little evidence that the consultants have made this important distinction.


/iii

One only has to look at the illustrations and accompanying commentary to see how little this report’s authors understand about Faversham. Lip service is paid to the town’s distinctive character, but they don’t seem to know what it is. The images are insipid and have no sense of place: apart from a few recognisable old buildings, there is little to distinguish them from the illustrations in the Sittingbourne report. Visuals like this will just alienate local people.

The picture of punts on the basin would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that it displays such ignorance of what the creek is all about. And the chap on the bike in Quay Lane would be well advised to get out of the way smartish, before he gets flattened by a double-decker bus or one of the fleet of HGVs negotiating the corner on their way to the brewery, Morrison’s or Tesco’s (serious consideration of traffic volumes and flows – and parking – is conspicuous by its absence from this report).

The consultants seem very excited about the potential of Town Green: have they ever been there at a high spring tide? (If they do go, remind them to take their wellies.) What with the traffic noise and pollution, the tidal flooding, the televised football and live bands at the Swan and Harlequin, and the window-breaking propensities of bevvied-up lads heading home from the town centre on Friday and Saturday nights, it’s unlikely that the undistinguished-looking blocks of flats visualised for this area will be ‘the most sought-after residential address in the town centre’.

No doubt some things will have changed by 2026, but there will still be tides, there will still be pubs, there will still be lads, and there will still need to be a traffic route through the town.

5 AND IT’S NOT ABOUT JOBS

There is talk of creating employment in heritage industries, yet existing workplaces along the creekside (BMM Weston, the Shepherd Neame brewery, Morrison’s supermarket, the Brents industrial estate) are referred to throughout the report mainly as obstacles, eyesores and potential sites for lucrative housing developments. The emphasis is on getting rid of them or minimising their impact, rather than finding ways to integrate them positively into future plans for the creekside.

These may not (with the exception of Shepherd Neame) be ‘heritage’ businesses, but they do provide proper jobs (not McJobs) for hundreds of people who live here. Their sites may not be beautiful – but Faversham’s heritage is gritty not pretty, and there should be scope for this to be reflected in future developments (it is certainly not reflected in this report’s effete illustrations).

A year-round working creekside will be far more ‘vibrant’ than one surrounded by dormitory housing estates and fair-weather tourist facilities. Just about anywhere can be made to look good on a sunny summer Sunday, but we want something that still works well on a wet Wednesday in winter.


/iv

We would particularly like to stand up for the Brents industrial estate, with genuinely affordable units that enable small businesses to provide a variety of local employment. The report says that the Creek Team supported the estate, yet most of the proposals would see it turned over to housing.

The industrial estate is, admittedly, an unlovely obstruction to the Saxon Shore Way footpath – but only because the path is diverted inland by housing developments. A continuous path along the waterfront from Front Brents to the marshes would greatly improve the creekside experience for all.

6 IT IS ABOUT MONEY

Yes, money will be needed to make this project work, and delivering any development in the current and medium-term financial climate will not be easy. But the report takes a very narrow view of funding opportunities.

The only significant source of funding identified is the £2.3m in s.106 contributions which could be generated by building 372 new homes. But much of this would go towards the cost of the infrastructural improvements that will be needed ... mainly, to support the 372 new homes. Not much net benefit to Faversham there.

The project is viewed as a generic land-use analysis. The potential economic contribution of water-based activity on the creek itself is largely ignored. No in-depth consideration is given to Faversham-specific factors – environmental, heritage, maritime, flood defence, tourism, job creation for East Kent, transport links and proximity to mainland Europe – as a basis for generating investment.

The wider strategic importance of Faversham creek should also be recognised. This extends beyond both Faversham Town Council and Swale District Council. It is vital that the resources of Kent County Council are actively employed in delivering this regeneration programme. Funding should also be sought from other relevant agencies in the UK and EU and from the private sector.

Last but not least, Faversham’s capacity for local initiative should not be underestimated. The town has an excellent track record, raising investment from a variety of sources (eg, the swimming pools, the community gymnastics centre, the Faversham Enterprise Partnership’s recent £203,000 funding package for town centre revival). According to the local press, the council spent £250,000 on this report: if such a sum had been made available to Faversham for work on the creek and for promotional activities, we would be seeing real progress by now.

The priority – emphasised repeatedly by the Faversham Creek Consortium – is to make the creek and basin navigable: this of itself will generate interest, initiatives and investment. In this context, what we need from the planning process is not a top-down blueprint but rather an enabling framework which will support locally-driven initiatives, give confidence to investors and deter low-quality and inappropriate development.


/v

7 ONE GOOD THING, THOUGH

We welcome the reference to ‘exciting contemporary architecture’ (Workshop 2). Faversham is a magnificent mix of building styles and periods which has evolved over centuries, but evolution seems to have ground to a halt, with much of the recent building being unimaginative period pastiche. The town should not be preserved in aspic: provided that they harmonise in size and scale, some bold and eco-friendly modern designs would be an energising asset.

8 AND FINALLY

We recognise that the structure, content and language of this report are designed to satisfy the conventions of the planning system. But, as ‘stakeholders’ and taxpayers, it does not satisfy us. It seems to us that this consultation is a missed opportunity, consuming time and resources which could have been spent far more productively on other initiatives, and delaying real and effective action to secure the future of Faversham Creek.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Berry & Hilary Whelan12 April 2010


ATTACHMENT 2: Comments on UI study & planning process, March 2008

Councillor Mike CosgroveChair, Faversham Creek Consortium

22 March 2008

Dear Mike,

FAVERSHAM CREEK CONSORTIUM AGM, 18 MARCH 2008

First of all, we would like to thank you and Natalie for, as usual, conducting the meeting professionally and diplomatically.

There was not enough time at the meeting to stand up and say all the things that we wanted to say, but, as we felt strongly about it, we would like to put them on record.

We shared the disappointment and frustration which was clearly evident among many of those present, and the sense that what began as an enthusiastic ‘bottom-up’ initiative is about to be hijacked by a top-down planning process, decked out in impenetrable acronyms and publicsectorspeak, and bogged down in bureaucracy.

URBAN REGENERATION

The primary objective of the Creek Consortium was the improvement of the Creek, with the expectation that this would have knock-on economic and social benefits for the town as a whole. This now seems to have been reversed, with the focus on urban regeneration, and the Creek as a means to that end: a case of the tail wagging the dog.

We fully appreciate that ‘urban regeneration’ is the magic phrase that opens the coffers of public funding. But, having experience of work in this field with housing organisations, we also know that the lure of funding has turned the regeneration game into a juggernaut full of consultants and vested interests, which can overwhelm genuine local initiatives.

The effective management of the Creek involves not only urban, but also maritime, rural and environmental factors. By fitting it into a rigid planning framework focused on urban regeneration, there is a danger that these other factors will be sidelined. Although the appointed planning consultants, Urban Initiatives, have some experience of waterside developments, their main strengths appear to lie elsewhere and it does not seem that they have much experience in rural or semi-rural environments (the clue’s in the name).


/2

We note also that, while Urban Initiatives have an impressive track record, it is mostly in much larger-scale projects, and we fear that our little development area may be too small to engage their full attention at senior level. This fear is reinforced by the observation that they apparently did not think it necessary to send a senior representative to our meeting. We would guess that they have been contracted for this project on the back of their appointment by Swale for the regeneration of Sittingbourne town centre and Milton Creek (we are surprised this was not mentioned at the meeting, given that the subject of Milton Creek had been raised in an earlier presentation). Their work there will be done in the context of the Thames Gateway development: we hope that this influence will not spill over into Faversham.

THE STATUS OF THE CONSORTIUM

Perhaps none of this would matter if the planning process were to be firmly grounded in the work already done by the Consortium (and other local organisations) and the preferences we have expressed - or if the council planning department and its consultants had at least shown more respect for the Consortium and had seemed genuinely keen to engage and act upon our collective and individual ideas and expertise. The unimpressive level and quality of their presentations suggested that they had underestimated the background, knowledge and expectations of their audience; they had come to speak, not to listen, and they did not seem responsive to the mood of the meeting.

If, for example, the consultants had taken advantage of the meeting to send along a team of people to gather information and canvass opinion from those present, it would have been both a useful input to their work and a positive sign of their intent to take the Consortium seriously. Instead, the message that came across from both parties – whether intentionally or not – was a patronising ‘well, thanks for all that, folks, we’ll bear it in mind, but the professionals are here now and we’ll do it our way’.

This message was amplified by the grudging admission that, if someone took the trouble to ask for it, the planning department would be legally obliged to disclose the brief/terms of reference for the consultants. Had these been made openly available to the Consortium, we would all have been better prepared for the meeting and the presentations might have had a warmer reception. As it was, we were left with the impression that there was something the planning department did not want us to know (or, more likely, that we were too unimportant to be told).

We recognise that the Consortium may not seem to be fully representative of the town (having, in common with many such groups, a somewhat middle-class flavour and an age profile tending towards the mature) and that wider consultation may be desirable. But let us not forget that the Consortium at its inception was widely publicised and was (and still is) open to all, and perhaps the views of those who can be bothered to take an active interest should carry more weight than the yet-to-be-elicited views of those who can’t.


/3

We also know, from personal experience, that the planning bureaucracy requires a set of boxes to be ticked (consultation with young people? disability groups? disadvantaged communities? etc. etc.) and that consultants may be necessary to ensure that this is seen to happen in order to obtain central government approval and funding. But this should not divert attention or resources from the practical, and urgent, priorities.

TIMESCALES & PRIORITIES

The planning process is largely predicated upon land that, it can be assumed, will stay where it is and still be there in a few years’ time. This assumption cannot be made with any degree of confidence in respect of the Creek.

Furthermore, while the planning process may be necessary to resolve conflicts and constrain inappropriate development, the most attractive places are those which have evolved naturally in sympathy with their environment. Our much-admired town centre and Abbey Street grew in haphazard fashion over the centuries and would not look as they do today if they had been planned. (Indeed, if the planners of the 1960s had had their way, they would not be there at all.)

We do not advocate short-termism. A leisurely timescale of spending a couple of years to develop a vision of what Faversham should be like in 2026 is fine for long-term planning – but it is not compatible with the pressures affecting the Creek. As the saying goes, time and tide wait for no man: between now and 2026 there will be more than 13,000 tides, each of them carrying yet more silt. There will also, probably, be accelerated global warming. Neither a muddy ditch nor a swampy flood-plain will be much of an asset to the town or a driver for regeneration.

By all means, let us support and feed into the urban regeneration process when the planners eventually get around to it, but having spent two years getting this far we cannot afford to spend another two years waiting for someone else to do it all again at our expense. Our priority must remain – as expressed very strongly by many of those at the meeting – continued pressure and action to achieve dredging/silt removal by whatever means, the renovation of the swing-bridge, and regular, active sluicing, in order to halt and ultimately reverse the silting up and make the Creek properly navigable. This in itself will attract greater interest, activity, publicity and visitors, which in turn will lead to new ideas, projects and revenue streams.

Active consideration must also be given to flood risk and prevention measures – now, not in several years’ time. After last November’s tidal surge (when the Creekside narrowly escaped material damage thanks to the fortunate timing of high tide, rather than the council’s delivery of sandbags after the flood risk had passed) Swale must surely be aware of the growing risks, and also of Environment Agency funding available to deal with them. Again this weekend, the spring tides are exceptionally high. What action is the council taking? The meeting would have been a good opportunity to update us. (But we think we can guess the answer.)


/4

In the early meetings of the Creek Consortium, there was considerable disagreement about ways and means, but there was unanimous agreement on one point: that we should DO SOMETHING.

What we chose to do was almost irrelevant: what was important was that something should be done, it should be done quickly, and it should be seen to be done. We wanted to start the ball rolling, attract attention, encourage investment. As far as we are aware, this mandate is unchanged. So let’s stick to our guns and get on with it.

Yours sincerely,

Chris BerryHilary Whelan

PS: On the suggestion from the floor that the Creek should seek to attract modern vessels (and the money they bring with them) as well as heritage craft: yes, indeed. There should be space, facilities and a welcoming atmosphere for both. For all its history and fine old buildings, Faversham is a living, working town, not a heritage museum, and the same should be true of the Creek. But please don’t let the lure of lucre turn the Creek into yet another boring marina lined with identikit blue-and-white boats. Areas such as Standard Quay and Iron Wharf may not be spiffy - a bit untidy, a bit ‘alternative’ – but they give the Creek a distinctive character which other sites simply do not have, which has fascinated our visitors from home and abroad, and which is increasingly attractive in a world where many people will pay a premium for authenticity and originality rather than corporate blandness. Let us resist the temptation to gentrify these places to death.


fullwood report response for fct website… · web view · 2011-06-14in may 2011 we received a...

Documents