PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

I would like to make a proposal that would alleviate many peoples worries about an increase in traffic.

I propose that we all band together and fight for better public transport through Tunstall village/Hamlet.

Reasons for:
People (not just school users) would have access to better links with Sittingbourne town
If available at an appropriate time, could reduce the majority of traffic through the village
Better for the environment

Reasons against:
Proper, large bus stop shelters will need to be erected outside homes
Residents will have to gaze upon big blue vehicles with the possibility of loiterers around said bus shelters

As a resident it WOULD affect me, however I am undecided if the other residents would want bus shelters outside their houses any more than they would like an educational establishment. I think it really comes down to the real issue of if a solution to the traffic problem could be found, would people still resist. After all just because we own plots of land in a particular area, that doesn't entitle us to demand that the view from our windows isn't changed.

I shall wait for the backlash which I am sure will come, I'm not confident that people are able to be polite and civilised anymore.

A village school should stay a village school for
village children.

#177: -

Does location make it a village school? Does the Village and indeed it's residents pay for the upkeep, does it pay for staff, does it resource the school?

I would support that point IF the village agreed to 100% fund the school and all it requires. As it stands the school is funded like any other school and is "a school" - location alone does not make it a "village school".

I am afraid that there are people out there who are publicly saying that Tunstall will be filled up with the wrong sort of children who will be "shipped in". Most worryingly, there is a teacher at Murston Junior School who has stood up at the last two formal meetings and told everyone that increased numbers will mean more children with free school meals, children with English as a foreign language, Romany's, travellers , SEN children, etc
I hope that tho isn't the general view of everyone else?

I know that some people may be worried about parking outside their houses. Maybe it will be an issue.
I lived very close to two schools ( an infants and a junior school with out any parent parking )for many years and would like to say that I never, ever found it to be a problem and I was never boxed in.
Having looked closely at the plans I don't think ( in my personal opinion) that it will cause problems and we must remember that they only add one class each year.
if the entrance to the school ends up being congested as some people have suggested then surely that will put the commuters off and they will find an alternative route. These are my personal opinions- please don't shout abuse at me for writing them.

Looked after children are on the top of the criteria for entry selection. These poor children are often damaged souls and have too much going on in their short lives to think about their education. They are not always easy to manage in a classroom of 30. Expert handling is a necessity. Unfortunately this can be disruptive to the other children within the class. SEN children have every right to be in any school but if there are a number of them on the audit then perhaps the SATS levels of the school will not be quite so favourable to some. The teacher at the meeting was being honest from her perspective.

#177: -

The great news is that the proposed site isn't in the village, nor the conservation area. The villagers will potentially get "their" village back, which one assumes they would really welcome given some of the reported issues. Residents further down the Tunstall Road and the surrounding area to the proposed site will potentially have the opportunity to build relationships with the school that haven't really been achieved in recent years at the current site.

#181: - 179

May be an honest "opinion" but is ignorant of reality.  I have a child with special educational needs, that has recently finished his time at Tunstall, and is now happily excelling at Borden.  A child with challenges can be just as competant than any other child.

My experience of Tunstall staff supporting those with extra challenges is excellent and I have no doubt that should there be an increase (with is purely rumourmill material at present) they will cope in an equally excellent manner.

I would like to request that the description of this petition is changed to reflect the actual concerns of the people supporting it.

It currently reads...

"We ask for your support in keeping our village school, which has been serving our community since 1846

We, the undersigned, want to keep the school, to educate local children, not to relocate it, nor expand it, and not to use grade 2 agricultural land to do so"

If the objections raised by this petition are upheld and the relocation/expansion is not taken forward, the aims of the description would not be met. If successful the following needs considering:

1) The school is currently serving a wider community than just the Hamlet of Tunstall. Nothing would change with a relocation.
2) Without relocation and expansion the current school will not be allowed to continue as it currently is. Essentially, yearly pupil in-take would be halved (for starters), funding would be reduced and the possibility of lower ratings and Ofsted reports could signal a death knoll for the school. I do not mean immediate closure, but this petition, if successful would bring about major problems for sustainability.
3) The "grade 2 agricultural land" is already owned by KCC and has always been intended to be used for Educational use. Previous examinations have been for Fulston Manor to relocate to the site and should Tunstall Primary not relocate the site is still owned by KCC and WILL be used at some point for educational use. Would it not be better to be used to actually make improvements to the historically rich educational establishment already there?

In essence, I believe this petition to be a short-sighted "not on my doorstep" reaction and am unable to support it due to the implications of it's success. Nobody wants to upset local residents, especially the patrons of this fine school, however when faced with the damage that this petition seeks to introduce I believe people who have signed already should fully consider the difference better a better school to be proud of as opposed to a struggling school blighting the name of the village.

Traffic is a HUGE concern for me. I understand there is expansion planned at Kent Science Park, and this too will add to the already busy roads in Tunstall and Woodstock .I doubt whether these roads can cope with the inevitable increase in traffic that a bigger school WILL bring. It is VERY emotive subject, I can see that from the parents of the children that attend the school, but I can also see it from the residents of the community in which I live.

#186: -

I refer the honorable guest to http://www.petitions24.com/forum/79825/start/175#176

Better public transportation in the area would work wonders.  Public transport through Tunstall, and to the Science park are ridiculously shambolic and would very much ease a lot of this debate around traffic.

It's a sideline debate, but I don't think it is fair to blame either the school or the science park for lack of public transport, however if this were improved then both arguments would be minimised.  If traffic is a concern, look to methods of easiing that without playing a blame game.

I am sure that those near the new site will be pleased to hear that a bungalow on Minterne avenue sold in less than2 weeks and people park outside their house during term time.

I am in support of KCC's application for the relocation and building of Tunstall School.

I myself was a pupil at Tunstall School, finishing nearly 12 years ago, and live in a neighbouring village that will be directly affected by the increased traffic flow that will accompany the move from single to two form entry.

When I was at Tunstall the accommodation was not fit for purpose. I somewhat doubt there has been any improvement since. Classrooms were small and cramped. Outdoor spaces were small and restrictive. Communal learning areas (such as library and IT facilities) were so small that they were almost non-existent. This didn't provide a suitable environment for effective learning, especially at a young age. This has also been noted in KCC and Ofsted statements, and therefore it represents a fact that the current site and buildings are not fit for purpose for the current single form entry primary education. Arguments about retaining the current site can't be valid with statements from influential bodies like these. Indeed, results attained at the School may be good, but with greater space and fit for use facilities they could be bettered. With a long term rising population trend local government isn't going to approve a move to half form entry due to its cost ineffectiveness with the population growth trend, again this is a futile argument.

Where ever there is a proposed development like this, be it housing or indeed schools, there is going to be local objection to development on green land, increased traffic and the buildings themselves. Tunstall is no exception but with increased population there is a need for new schools in the town. Land cannot appear from no where! Sure, the population growth may not necessarily be exclusive to the Tunstall area, but the combination of the need for a replacement for Tunstall School with the need for increased school places could be seen by KCC as an ideal opportunity to remove two problems with one solution - it's more cost effective to build one two form entry school than two single form entry schools, and ultimately cost will play a large part in the decision making process of KCC's plans for school places. It's a school in the village, not the village's school, and so it's not solely for the village's use, people from outside of its immediate vicinity can and should be able to access the school - the quasi-market system that we have in this country means that parents can choose what school they send their children to, regardless of location.

It seems logical to say that traffic flow will increase at school start and finish times, although most likely after and before commuter traffic times respectively, not at the same time. It's not just Tunstall that is affected by increased traffic at this time, however. The whole of Sittingbourne goes into gridlock - outside every school - Tunstall will be no different, but I don’t think the impact will be that great - it will be at the same time as current traffic build up. Perhaps with improved and increased facilities the School would be able to provide more after school clubs that would reduce the impact!

The most subjective part of my comment is to agree that parking may be problematic. There aren't many on site spaces for leaving and collecting children during normal school times. Not only this, but the space would be completely inadequate for school events such as the summer fete, concerts, parents' evenings, May Day etc. (I'm surprised that the village scaremongers haven't thought of this!). This would cause huge spill over into neighbouring roads, with potentially unsafe movement caused by the roads and traffic between the School and cars. I feel that there would be a suitable solution to this problem. The KCC owned site includes a part to the west that is marked as unused in this application. If the site plan were to be flipped such that the staff parking is located on the west of the site rather than the planned east of the site, a portion of the unused section could be used for an additional car park, easily accessed by the now west aligned driveway. Having separate entrance and exit driveways and access points to the road could also improve traffic flow by reducing the load on a single access point.

This is a fantastic opportunity to improve a school that has struggled with its accommodation for decades, as well as meet the needs of a population rise. The reports within the application state that the marginal traffic impact on the village will be not be as great as local commentators are speculating on. I am in support of this application and fully hope that it is granted.

#189: -

I agree. Only thing I would add though is that the potential parking issues with "events", how is this different to the current location.  There have been events such as May Day, Sports Day and everyone has managed to squeeze in...  There will still be the church car park for overspill, and without trying to start world war 3, the village hall car park.

#190: walkingonthinicewiththis - Re:

The potential parking issues is very different to the current site. Thare is no safe link to walk between the proposed site and the church car park or the village hall car park, unless taking a very long route through Cranbrook Drive, Park Drive and then onto Tunstall Road. Also, the School would be doubling in size. Now I don't agree with the local scaremongers that this represents a doubling in traffic (siblings, walkers, cyclists etc.) but there will be more cars, so the current "squeeze" won't work. I think the use of the additional land (or part of it) for a car park would be a worthwhile investment on safety and traffic flow grounds, and potentially it would increase the marketable nature of the School for hiring of facilities (but don't tell the locals this!) - scout groups hiring the hall, sports teams hiring the grass areas, local (maybe village!) societies using the hall.

 

#189

#191: - Re: Re:  

I agree that more thought should be given to the parking, entry/exit points, but that does not mean I oppose the planning application. I think that even those that will never agree with the development have a vital contribution to make by making constructive suggestions to how they would make the current plans better, as "Just don't do it!", may be a missed opportunity for them. If objective observations are made then whilst the final plans may not be what they would have chosen, they may potentially be able to say "It's not what I wanted at all, but it's better than it could have been".

Incidentally it is 0.49miles from the proposed school entrance at the new site to the front door of the church via Cranbrook Drive / Park Drive and 0.32miles to the church's from door if you went directly from the proposed school entrance at the new site to the front door of the church straight up the Tunstall Road.

#179: Guest - re; undesirables

I need to make it clear that I have NEVER called these children undesirables - I love my job and I love working at Murston Junior School and I am very proud of working there, I first started teaching there in 1985. I now teach the children of the children I first taught.   All children bring with them a uniqueness that makes teaching the vocation and the joy that it is. The point that I am making is that there are peaks and troughs in the birth rate. The new school will not always be full and so it is important that you understand the implications of when there is a dip. We do a fantastic job with the children who come our way, not everyone appreciates the time and care we give.Ofsted rated us Good with Outstanding Features. When a new school opens in the Sittingbourne area it will be hugely popular because of all its new facilities. If the other schools are full, as County seems to imply is the case, then this new school will be the place that the children will be placed. You never know County might even place an English as an Additional Language Specialist Unit in said new build wherever it ends up. Focus on the main point, this site is not the correct site to build a new school for 420 children.

#181: - 179

Thank you for making this point clear. I am not sure why the next person to comment on the site is so shocked and thinks I should retire. Mr Gove wants us to teach until we are 68. All being well, I shall.

#194: - Re: 179

Great stuff no difference betwen schools they are all schools and everyone should be treated the same. Shame no one at all has considered the residents of Tunstall

#193: - I

Why is it not the correct site?

#196: Guest - Re murston teacher

Unfortunately your post is very personal and both sides (well most of us ) are trying to avoid being personal.With regards to whether the school admissions policy will change who knows as Government, both local and national views and policies do tend to blow with the wind!! No one can predict the future.

#198: - Re: Re murston teacher

Oh by the way to anyone degrading Murston School they had the same Offsted grade as Tunstall.