To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
As I said in my comments about Sheerness, the east facing entrance gave me concerns and I would continue to use Queenborough…
I had wondered what had happened to the plans for a marina at Queenborough itself – a far better proposition: it is within the protective envelope. It is a historical destination/jumping off/ arrival point. I am pleased to see that it is not entirely deceased, however, SBC seem to have rejected it in the revised plans of 2010, retaining moorings as they are.
Access for only for 4 hours per tide would seem to me to be a negative. Craft on the south Essex shore would probably not be able to reach home on, say, a Sunday afternoon tide after the ‘selling’ point for club meets.
Could not the access creek bed not be lowered?
Thanks for your comments Nick, yes the creek could be dredged to give more of a time window to get in or out, and yes it is in a better position than Sheerness being much more sheltered, and with Queenborough’s fascinating historical roots.
The plan is just a concept and the tidal window is more like 5 hours, 2 and a half hours either side of high tide, (without dredging), however the challenge is to get SBC to accept the principle of the potential use of the creek, and not wast this once in lifetimes opportunity. We don’t want them to just build high and medium density houses around the creek side, restricting the existing marine use of this wonderful creek.
I am disappointed and upset by the way Faversham Creek Trust, Upper Brents Association, and BMM Weston Ltd, have been treated by Swale Borough Council and Faversham Town Council, even with a neighborhood plan, for the development of Faversham Creek, so I don’t hold out much hope either with the development of Queenborough. If readers agree please send comments about Queenborough to planningpolicy@swale.gov.uk before the 15th December, Thanks T Bell
i would love to see a marina in queenborough as a yachtsman myself i have traveled to many marinas ,and they all attract many visitors not just yachtsman but people who like the feeling of being near the water , and enjoying the sights ,some marinas are the focal point of the local area and enhance it by bringing money to the local economy , The local council are in a unique position to turn this proposal into a reality instead of just building another big housing development and leaving the creek to rack and ruin to become a dumping ground for shopping trolleys and peoples rubbish , they could help to create a wonderful marina complex with all the bars , cafes and small businesses that could flourish , queenborough is a real gem which just needs someone with some vision to unlock its potential