PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

#131: Dicky - Re:

With the ability to produce 5 million plus the inevitable overspend (the one thing you can depend on the public sector to do), I would  imagine with sensible negotiation , the land could be secured at a fraction of the cost. The excellent school could be retained and life could return to some sort of normality. Though looking at the way the original three options were rapidly culled and disposed of without a decent funeral, and this vanity project of a rabbit was pulled out of the planning hat I fear this option was the only one K.C.C. was ever interested in. As our American friends might have it, County hall says- go swivel you plebs

#144: Dicky - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: KCC MUPPETS

What a village hall!!!!.     or have I got the wrong comment

#132: Dicky - Re:

Dear old tricky dicky , very busy tonight. Dicky as you probably know Tunstall school was in the aegis of the parish council, and the proposed building site, in the aegis of Kent Farm Institute both caring and responsible organisations at that time. The field having been used since time immemorial to instruct young men in the technical aspects of agriculture (I know as I had two uncles who attended, now long gone). This was before the monolithic K.C.C. and it's band of overpaid wasters got involved, and decided they didn't like Kent and would turn it into an overspill estate for london( deliberately didn't give it a capital- doesn't deserve it). But like Dicky and many of his ilk know, we don't need agriculture anymore, cos food comes from supermarkets. My family have lived on the north downs for hundreds of years so I feel qualified to say -- SOD OFF AND LEAVE MY COUNTY ALONE ( in the nicest possible way lest anyone take offence).

#122: Princy - KCC MUPPETS

The same could be said of the people against the proposal......same arguments as heard at the Minterne meeting, and  after hearing them the KCC decided that a new school should be built on the site proposed despite those arguments.

Lots of people now going over the same ground and just becoming more and more malicious, which won't help their cause. Sad.

#123: - Re: KCC MUPPETS

Funny how someone next to me shouted "silly cow" when one of the Mums was speaking about traffic issues. That was really respectful,  and another supporter of the school was openly referred to as "the enemy". I must have been hearing things.......

1. As a resident in the immediate vicinity of the proposed school site, I totally empathise with those livng close by who are concerned about the immediate and long term implications that building a school on the proposed site would bring
2. As a local resident, I have long held concerns about the size of vehicles that are allowed to use the Tunstall Road. This is an issue irrespective of whether there is a school in Tunstall at all
3. As a local resident, in their early 40s with children, I am lucky to have great neighbours, of whom 3 out of 4 of our immediate are retired couples. We put each others bins out, chat over the garden fence etc - there is no "generation divide"
4. As a local resident who would like to live in the area for a long time yet to come, I am trying to look beyond when my children cease to need primary education
5. As a parent, one of our children attends Tunstall School at the current site. He has benefited from excellent experiences (educationally and personal developmentally) despite the facilities that are available. His default method of getting to / from school is on foot.
6. As a parent of children that have yet to need primary education, if the school relocation does not go ahead, the assumption of many might be that these children would follow their elder sibling up to the current school. That is not our intention. Why? The complete uncertainty over the school on its current site influenced by the risks of the school being reduced in size (high-medium) with a possibility (not a certainty) that eventually it may have to close, the risk of the facilities not being brought into the 21st Century (high-medium), the risks of the leased land being withdrawn (low). I don't have a crystal ball but as a parent who wants to give their kids a great start it life I want to reduce / eliminate risks that could hinder that. If others locally share our thinking, and some of our friends do, then the future of the school may not be to service those who live in the parish even if it does remain. Who knows? I don't!
6. As a parent, if the school relocation does go ahead it will provide a fantastic facility for some of my children in the future.
7. As an individual, I spent the 1st 4 years of my life living next to a farm ... I love the countryside! Building on it should not be taken lightly. At some point in history though every single house that anyone currently occupies, every single school, every single office, every single shop etc etc was only occupied by nature. Things evolve. That's life.
8. As an individual, long term stategies are vital - I don't see that being particularly evident. Not building additional infrastructure, e.g. with Eden Village does seem an opportunity missed - but it wasn't and we are where we are.
9. As an individual, I want to be a member of a thriving community, who feel able to share different perspectives, who listen and learn from each other, who can agree to disagree and move on. It is possible, people just need to want to.
10. As a resident my observation is that there are pockets of "communities" in the Tunstall area at the moment, but they are not joined up. There is an opportunity for that to happen. People just need to want to.

On the school proposal there is no easy answer.

However, after it is all decided the local people will still need to be able to get on with their lives, and there is evidence that local people are already being made to feel uncomfortable because they are supporting the proposal or not supporting the proposal. That's not good. As I have shared above, there are many who can see pros and cons, and that may not be a particularly even mix, and when they weigh it all up, they are deciding one way or another - and that's OK. Regardless of opinion or perspective I would just ask that everyone respects others and treats them how they wish to be treated, which may not be how you wish to be treated.

Thank you for letting me share my thoughts.

#157: Life's Too Short ... and rarely simple - A multi perspective view

Agree totally with the spirit and concilliatory nature of your comments. Though my views and hopes for this plan are in direct opposition to your own, I respect your right to hold them and defend your right also to propound them. I am sure most of us want a just , sensible and sustainable outcome.

As a child growing up in the post war years in a rural environment, we had neither the wealth nor at that time the availibility of the double curse of television or computer games. Being in such an environment we were encouraged to read, which we did avidly and also to dicuss and construct an argument which would throw light rather than heat on a particular topic. One aspect of wisdom my mother would interject at times when maybe a little too much heat was being generated was that fifty per cent of the art of conversation or discussion was listening. A skill that seems sadly lacking in this current debate.

As for the large scale of these early learning facilities being the future or progress  I have my reservations, as the twin curses of television and computer games, once hailed as revolutionary and beneficial to all, have been seen to have a deletirious effect on family life and community cohesion. We are often told that 'we work so many hours these days there just isn't the time any more for family life' , but in my own and my fathers working lives 60-70 hour working weeks were not uncommon, yet the time was still found to cement the bonds of family and community. Again this is notably absent now.

Forgive my rant and personal social history, but I am just using it to highlight the difference in attitude, then and now.

I don't think I am looking through rose tinted specs as I can still feel the warmth of all those years past, it isn't evident now.

In conclusion ditch the screechers and wilfully deaf, let reason and generosity of spirit prevail.

Offered in a spirit of amity and good neighbourliness

#158: m. putorious furo aka old country boy - Re: A multi perspective view 

 Hi! I've contacted you directly. I hope you can pick my message up.

#162: - Re: Re: A multi perspective view

Fraid not

#82: - KCC - ANOTHER FINE MESS YOU'VE GOT US INTO!

Please get your facts straight. Tunstall school is not the only primary school where there are plans to increase capacity. the following are also affected:

Westlands Primary School - increasing from 420 to 630 pupils

Lower Halstow School - increasing from 140 to 210 pupils

Lansdowne Primary School - increasing from 210 to 420 pupils

Iwade Community Primary School - increasing from 420 to 630 pupils.

So there is a good chance that all of those children that you find so undesirable won't end up at the new Tunstall school.

#161: Choose a nickname - Further to the proposed location

I am fascinated to know how so many of you have become such experts on the traffic movements of the people who live in Sittingbourne. The majority of traffic that comes along Tunstall Road does so between 07.00 and 08.00 weekday mornings - this is borne out by the traffic survey that was commissioned and paid for out of tax payers money, by Tunstall Parish Council. Traffic at this hour is nothing to do with people taking their children across town to school but more to do with people using the road as a rat run to avoid the Key Street and Stockbury roundabouts on the A249. For your information, the vast majority of families who live on the Sonora Fields estate find places for their primary school aged children at Bobbing primary School.

#151: mustela ermininia - Re: Re:

Well said!

#165: undecided - Mind made up

Liberal drivel.

#166: Guest - Re: KCC - ANOTHER FINE MESS YOU'VE GOT US INTO!

Please please no one finds the children undesirable at all in fact most of us have had children, have children and many have grandchildren and great grandchildren. No one is opposed to children! Just becuase we have differing views to you certainly doesnt make us bad. The people opposed to the build are allowed a say in this even though you seem to think that we should just shut up and have KCC steam Roller over us.Stop the nonesens and lets all talk sensibly.

#166: Guest - Re: KCC - ANOTHER FINE MESS YOU'VE GOT US INTO!

It is not the children that are 'so undesirable 'but the traffic that is generated by their movement across the town. 'Children that you find so undesirable' Those are your words and not no.82's

#163: MPF/OCB - Re: Re: Re: A multi perspective view 

I've confirmed a case of mis-identification on my part! :-) Oops! I had tried to reach out to you because although we may have drawn different conclusions on the current school proposal, I would welcome the opportunity to understand more from your perspective, but would totally understand if you wish to remain anonymous.

Given people can conditionally conclude that they will be supportive or not supportive of the school planning application, this wider undestanding of more perspectives may be a useful influence on how people respond. Afterall it doesn't have to be a straight Agree / Oppose. Responses can be made with observations or even caveats e.g. fundamentally the site is fine, the land use is fine, but would like to see further consideration given to entry/exit points, or even that they support conditional that this is the only development that appears on the site for x period of time, or, fundametally oppose the the site as proposed, but if x y and z was done then this would reduce opposition. Of course there will be people who will only oppose for particular reasons to them, and that's OK, but it would still be good to understand why, as that helps others gain the perspectives.  

Incidentally, some of your reflections on days gone by, which you kindly shared, are still reflected in some "modern" households e.g. long working weeks, and valued family time, playing sport, going for walks, away from games consoles and TVs etc,  :-)

Keep well!

#10: The future is bright the future is Tunstall - Observations

Consider the reasons why you like the education that your children receive at Tunstall as it is now, the quality is good, the results are good, the environment is caring, small and secure. Consider the reasons why parents did not choose Grove Park School - for example, as it is comparable in size to the proposed new build. Then consider exactly what it is KCC really want out of this new build. They are not building this just because there is a short fall of places. KCC will have other plans for this beautiful new building, which may include specialist units for children who struggle to cope with mainstream schooling, for example. All children are special, and deserve the best we can offer them. This new build will come as a great start to so many more children and all their wonderful little idiosyncracies. County will expect payback. A good place to start comparing schools is the Ofsted Dashboard............. We need a new school but not here, it will just make the journey for the people of Sonara Fields 500m further.

I am always suspicious when an authoritative body, such as KCC, has to resort to lying or misrepresenting a situation to get its own way. The Transport Document that is available via the KCC planning link has used some dodgy information to draw up the conclusions that it wants to. Chapter 6.3.9 assures us that the additional traffic generated by this proposal on the junction of Woodstock Road, Tunstall Road, Cromers Road and Ruins Barn Road is negligible based on the understanding that the number of children who will share the school journey will increase because the school is being relocated by 500m. Similarly, this same document tells us that 10 children currently cycle to school. However, the shool's own Travel Plan states that no children cycle. KCC figure comes from a show of hands survey undertaken by the school. Chapter 5.3.5 states that any parents that walk are forced to walk on the carriageway of Tunstall Road, but this is misleading and wrong. There is a continuous path for those families who walk from Park Drive. To omit this fact is devious. If the official documents that are being presented to the decision makers are this untrustworthy, what can we expect from KCC regarding the real future intentions of the teaching objectives at the new school?

#174: Hedgehog - Misleading Information

"Chapter 5.3.5 states that any parents that walk are forced to walk on the carriageway of Tunstall Road"
This is not a lie, the pathway is suitable for 2 average sized persons to pass each other, if you bring into the occasion people walking dogs, riding bicycles, already walking 2 abreast - the passing opportunity reduces drastically.  What happens is someone has to step into the carriageway or be faced with either jumping onto the verge, climbing a fence or going back to the larger corner behind them.

Also....

I would very much like you to show me the continuous path that can take me to the front gate of the school office as a pedestrian please. From your comment I am sure that you know the area well, although I think you may be under the impression that people only enter the school at a particular time of day. Because of the childrens security, the side and main gates are locked and the only entrance outside of normal times is the front entrance.

I admit I may be wrong, it has been roughly 2 hours since I was there last and a continuous pathway may have been erected in the meantime. If that is the case I would apologise profusely.