Faversham Creek Consortium Management Group

FAVERSHAM CREEK CONSORTIUM MANAGEMENT GROUP

Minutes of meeting held on 18 September 2014 in the Municipal Charities’ Boardroom

Present:

Mike Cosgrove (Chair)

George Barnes

Nigel Kay

Jeremy Lamb

Anne Salmon

Susan White

Brian Caffarey (Secretary)

1. Apologies for absence were received from Bob Berk, Eric Green, Andrew Osborne, Bob Telford and Geoff Wade.

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 10 JULY 2014

2. The draft minutes were approved.

MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

(i) Nautical Festival – paragraph 3

3. Mike Cosgrove said that he had drawn Swale Borough Council’s officers’ attention to the complaint that the edge of the Town Quay had not been cleared prior to the Festival. They had noted this for future festivals.

(ii) Shepherd Neame discharge application – paragraph 4

4. George Barnes expressed his thanks for the support which the Consortium and others had given to the Brewery’s application, which had been approved. Work was expected to start reasonably soon.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

(i) General position

5. Nigel Kay and Anne Salmon gave the following update:

The consultants, Feria Urbanism, appointed in July to carry out an independent review of the draft Neighbourhood Plan had spent recent weeks examining all the relevant information, including representations made and the various appraisals
Meetings of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group had been arranged for 25 September and 7 October. At the first meeting the consultants would make a presentation, without papers being circulated in advance, setting out the background and their thoughts and recommendations concerning the draft. Decisions would not be made at that meeting but there would be an opportunity for questions.
The Steering Group would reconvene on 7 October to make decisions for referral to the Town Council, which would have a special meeting on 13 October.

6. The format for the Steering Group meetings had been requested by the consultants. It was hoped that not circulating papers in advance would encourage everyone to listen to the presentation rather than coming with preconceived views about particular aspects.

(ii) The Bridge

7. Mike Cosgrove said that there had been a number of discussions following the decision, reported at the last meeting of the Management Group, of the Coastal Communities Fund (CCF) to reject the bid which had been pulled together by Brenda Chester and Philippa Dickenson on behalf of the Bridge Steering Group. There was considerable concern on the part of the other members of the Steering Group that the bid had been submitted, in KCC’s name, without the Steering Group’s knowledge; that it contained elements which would not have been approved by the Group; and that it ought to have been clear that it had no hope of succeeding. On the last point, Mike said that the key criteria by which bids were judged were the number and cost of jobs to be created. It was known that the average cost per job of previous successful bids had been some £15k to £18k, whereas the bid submitted proposed the creation of nine and a half jobs at the cost of £1.2m – roughly £120k per job.

8. In discussion considerable dismay was expressed that this opportunity to seek at least some contribution to the overall cost of an opening bridge had been wasted. Mike said that it seemed to him that there were now four possible options: (i) accept that the replacement bridge would be non-opening; (ii) try to persuade KCC to up its proposed contribution of £400k to meet the additional cost (£500k- £600k?) of an opening bridge; (iii) seek funding from elsewhere e.g. from grant-giving bodies; and (iv) look to an appropriate authority to borrow the money needed.

9. Those present, while recognising that the situation was difficult, were very reluctant to abandon the objective of an opening bridge. It was thought that there was no realistic prospect of KCC increasing its provision. It was also considered that it might be difficult to persuade grant-giving bodies to provide funds for what they might think was something which public bodies ought to fund, although this might be a more attractive proposition if it could be shown that public bodies were contributing and that what was sought was ‘matched funding’ to cover the remaining sum needed. Borrowing the money seemed to be an option worth considering seriously: the cost for a public body of borrowing, say, £500k on a repayment loan would be roughly £30k per year over 25 years. It was noted, however, that it would be necessary, too, to meet the ongoing cost of maintenance and repairs. The absence of a revenue stream presented difficulties in this regard.

10. Mike Cosgrove noted that a further option would be to use CIL money arising from new housing, although Anne Salmon pointed out that it had been the intention that this would be used for ‘Streetscape’ projects.

11. It was agreed that a paper should be prepared for the November meeting setting out options. This should be circulated in advance and, if possible, a draft should also be seen beforehand by the main bodies concerned. (ACTION: MIKE COSGROVE AND BRIAN CAFFAREY)

FAVERSHAM CREEK FOOTPATHS

12. Brian Caffarey reported that KCC’s Regulation Committee had met recently and had received formal notification of the outcome of the public inquiry concerning the public footpath at Faversham Reach. The Committee had asked the officers to prepare a report for a subsequent meeting. KCC officials were apparently talking to Swale Borough Council officials about the s.106 agreement for the public footpath in the neighbouring Waterside Close development. The Town Council and other bodies wished to see the two footpaths linked to form a continuous Creek-side walk.

THE WORK OF THE CONSORTIUM

13. The meeting noted the work programme. Many of the Consortium’s original objectives had been subsumed into the Neighbourhood Planning process. It was agreed that there should be a proper discussion at the next meeting about the Consortium’s future with a view to putting proposals to the AGM in the spring.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

14. Jeremy Lamb mentioned that he had been struck, on a recent visit to Woodbridge in Suffolk, by its focus on its ‘strapline’ as a port for1,000 years. He added that he thought it was important if Faversham wished to attract boating visitors that it improved facilities. He also noted the need to improve buoyage: the channel was not at all clear once the tide rose.

NEXT MEETING

15. The next meeting will take place on Thursday 20 November 2014.

21 September 2014