PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

#76: -

Do you live in a burrow?

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

Your comment does not make sense.

#176: residentwithmixedfeelings - Better Public Transport

Baffling!  Public transport through Tunstall?  Are you sure that is where you live? What kind of public transport?  A tandem or a rickshaw?  That is all there is room for.

#179: Guest - re; undesirables

I understand all the children will have free schools meals for the first 3 years before long thanks to the Clegg.   Are you saying that what this teacher said isn't potentially true?   As a retired teacher I would say it is rather naive of you to think that these FACTS wouldn't have an impact on the children in the school and the school community.  The make up of the intake would certainly impact on the kind of school it would become and it certainly wouldn't be the same school that it currently is.  Those are FACTS (just wish to make that clear to whoever it is that likes to insist on 'facts').  For those mums and dads who argue that it is imperative that the new school is built to secure an excellent education for their children need to address that this will most probably be the case.  Whether it is thought it makes for a better school or not, or whether it is to be considered of no consequence either way to the education of mums and dads little ones, is up to them to consider and contemplate but to suggest that it is abhorrent to think about at all is to be in a pc denial.   The school itself will need to address those issues and use of resources and it most certainly will. It won't be allowed not too.

For those who attended or have heard the outcome of Thursdays Planning meeting ( if you can call it that).
NEVER WAS THERE A MORE OBVIOUS PRE-DETERMINED DECISION!

So, for all residents of Sittingbourne, the Chairman, Cllr Barnicott has accepted responsibility for this fiasco, so if anyone would like to contact him, then his email address is: RICKBARNICOTT@SWALE.GOV.UK

I think it's time to shutdown this farce of a petition. It's basically just a way for certain people to vent their bile to other like-minded bile-filled people. The comments on this page alone show it's a rant space rather than it's intended goal of gaining support against the new expanded school build.

As a member of the parish, and having heard of some of the disgusting behaviour that has taken place, I am inclined to believe that the same people posting their rants on here are the same that have been using threatening behaviour and borderline criminal actions to progress their viewpoints. Strong opinion and feelings I fully support, however not at the detriment of others feelings of safety and security.

I do not post this against those that started the petition, as I believe they are balanced individuals. Please put a stop to the bile-mongers.

With regards to the above mentioned post, I have read the posting above, and have not found one that could be described as "a rant space"
As for the other comments, I for one, also a member of this parish, am not aware of ' disgusting behaviour' or 'threatening behaviour' or 'borderline criminal actions'? so I respectfully suggest that if you have proof of any, either, bring it to the attention of the Parish Council, or like me, they will probably suggest you contact the Police

I have never witnessed any such actions, but perhaps, feelings are not naturally running high, as a lot of residents want to keep their way of life, and parents who attend Tunstall School want to make it better. The difference is, the way KCC have and are going about this, which is leading neighbour against neighbour

There should have been adequate consultation with residents BEFORE funding was obtained in July 2013. Why did KCC not carry out their consultation prior to September or October. There are any number of inaccurate statements within the application documents, so many people will find different things at different times

With regards to your posting, I take personal offence at these comments, as someone who is not against the school, nor if necessarily against relocation, but against KCC using land that is an ILCG, despite their ownership. That does not make it right. Many people have suggested that "it has always been earmarked for a school. No, it was purchased in the 1960's for an Agricultural College. In 1985 KCC approached SBC to ask what their view would be for a school, and I quote
"I SHOULD PERHAPS PREFACE MY COMMEBTS BY SAY THAT I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE A SCHEME SUCH AS THIS WHEN THERE IS NO INDICATION OF THE NEED FOR A NEW SCHOOL SITE OR THE REASONS FOR PROPOSING THIS PARTICULAR SITE. THE PRESENT SCHOOL IS SITUATED IN THE CENTRE OF THE VILLAGE AND IS BASED IN AN ATTRACTIVE BUILDING WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO THE CHARACTER AND ATTRACTIONS OF THE CONSERVATION AREA
THIS SITE IS SITUATED ON THE TUNSTALL ROAD WHICH IS A BUSY CLASSIFIED ROAD LINKING TO THE SOUTH OF SITTINGBOURNE. THERE ARE NO FOOTWAYS AND FORWARD VISABILITY FOR DRIVERS IS RESTRICTED BECAUSE IF THE WINDING NATURE OF THE ROAD
THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSING ESTATES FROM WHICH THE SCHOOL WOULD DRAW ITS PUPILS ARE TO THE NORTH OF THIS ROAD"
THE PROPOSED SITE IS SITUATED ON THE OPEN SPUTHERN SIDE OF TUNSTALL ROAD AND THERE ARE STRONG POLICY AND AMENITY OBJECTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT IN THIS LOCATION. IN THE ABSCENCE OF ANY OVERRIDING NEED, I CANNOT SEE THAT A PLANNING PERMISSION COULD BE GIVEN FOR THIS SITE

Perhaps, as a Resident of this Parish, you can tell me what has changed between 1985 and 2014 ( other than the school has increased its numbers ). There are more cars now. The Policies are still in place. The housing estates are still mainly in the North!



I

Apologies for spelling,

#355: - SBC PLANNING MEETING  

 Of course it was pre determined, I have copy of the planning services notes which were on the internet a week before the meeting stating that the head of planning had no objection to this going ahead!

Surprise Surprise! I also wrote to the Secretary of State on 26th February asking him to look into the plans. He then passed this onto Paul Williams Planning - Economic and Social Policy. Who replied to me on 8.4.2014 received after the planning meeting! His last paragraph totally confused me, stating that where planning applications had not been decided a decision could be requested for from the Secretary of State and should contact npcu@communities .gsi.gov.uk. I cannot believe this I have come full circle and deadline has been missed. Why wasnt my email sent to the NPCU in February. Should I go back to the NPCU anyway?

 

1. The proposed new site is located in a narrow rural country road with traffic calming measures, single lane width restrictions and many blind bends.
2. With the doubling in size of the school i.e 210 to 420 pupils, the traffic and parking of parents will increase the traffic. Currently running at 22,000 vehicles per week. This road is also used as a rat run to the A249, M2 and M20. It also serves as one of the access road to the ever expanding Kent Science Park.
3. It will encourage cross town traffic to feeder roads to the site, as the local population are in the 50+ age range with no children of primary school age.
4. The proposed new building is not in keeping with the landscape and will be within a roads width of the existing houses opposite, where there is no footpath for pedestrians.
5. The proposed new locations of the pedestrian road crossings are close to a Tee junction and the other on a blind bend. This is very unsafe for parents and children to cross.
6. There is a proposed 3 metre perimeter fence and flood lighting with out of school hours activities envisaged on the, which will increase light & noise pollution.
7. The 4 acre site is grade 2 farmland that forms part of the countryside gap, that is planted out every year by the the local farmer.
8. The site is as stated in the councils own report to be known for pluvial flooding. It also states that any development on a site like this would exacerbate the problem. This would mean both Chegworth Gardens and Tunstall Road having more flooding. The National Planning Policy Framework states that it is inappropriate development should be avoided in areas at risk of flooding.
9. 90% of the residents do not want the school relocated to this site and want the council to consider other sites closer to where there is a population of children that are at primary school age. This will encourage parents to either use public transport or walk their children to school rather than use their cars to get to a site out in the countryside, and increase air pollution as aresult.
10. The proposed methods of dealing with the flooding of the site are inadequate, very costly and not guaranteed to be effective. Surely this money could be better spent.
11. We have greater fears that further development of new houses will happen as a result of this proposed relocation.
12. This is an ideal opportunity to relocate to anther location and elevate the already heavy traffic problem, as the current school has temporary buildings and cannot accommodate an increase to 2 form entry.

Protect Tunstall and its residents are not opposed to a new school and the prospect of better facilities and education for pupils, it is just that the location is unsafe, not in the area where it is needed i.e north Sittingbourne, it encourages more traffic, not in keeping with the surroundings and will use farmland used for food production.
We also feel that we as a community have not had any representation from our local councillors and MP, and that this whole proposal is predetermined and already agreed to happen irrespective of our objections.
Our local councillors have moved away and are not around to give voice at any meetings, the stand-in councillors have not been voiced our objections on our behalf and at a recent Swale Borough Planning meeting we were told as residents to “get in the real world” by the chairman of the meeting. He gave insufficient time for us explain our concerns and told a councillor who voiced concerns that her comments did not relate to this application. It also transpired that a similar planning application was turn down for all the above objections.

We now await the KCC planning meeting where we hope we will get a chance to explain our concerns.

RE point 9. Surely this point should read:
90% of the carefully selected local residents do not want the school relocated....

Wishing Everyone a very happy Easter
Have a good break
Lets try and remember what Easter is really about!
Cheers

#362: lance Fincham - EASTER

Well said Lance!  :-) Wishing everyone a peaceful and restful Easter.

#361: - #360 

 

We are a group who are passionate to save our village from development ... Not a select group !... I door knocked 60 houses in Ruins Barn Road which is going to be majorly affected by this proposal only 3 houses are for it .... That is not a select group that is a majority !

#365: - Protect Tunstall

Perfectly put

#365: - Protect Tunstall

However if you read back through this petition you'll see a couple of people saying that they felt under pressure to say what the door knockers wanted.  I wonder how many that was in reality.

 

For many, many years I door knocked for several charities (once you do for one charity others seem to ask as well) and I can assure you that if people do not want to speak to you they do not answer their doors.

#347: - SBC PLANNING FIASCO

Perhaps you ought to quote the councillor in full, instead of using soundbites, because by doing what you have, you are inflaming the situation further. He actually said "the people of Tunstall, welcome to the 21st century, where village schools are no longer solely for the residents of a particular village, but are here to serve the wider community" - doesn't sound quite as bad as what you have stated, does it?

#359: - Re: SBC PLANNING MEETING

It is clear from your comment that you have no understanding of the processes involved, so let me enlighten you.

The planning officer involved with the case will look at the application, together with the supporting documentation, and consider it in relation to local and national planning policy. They will also consider any objections raised to the proposal and whether they are relevant or not in terms of planning. They will also normally consult a wide number of public bodies, such as the Highways Authority, the Police, Fire Brigade, and so on, to see if they have any comments to make.

Once the Planning officer has completed this part of the process, he/she is then required to put forward a reasoned argument, either for or against the proposal, in a report, which is, as a matter of courtesy, presented to the Planning Committee on behalf of the Head of Planning.

The report is circulated a week or so before the Planning Committee meeting, to enable the committee members, and members of the public who may wish to speak at the meeting, to assimilate themselves with the Head of Planning's recommendations. The members of the Planning Committee will then have the opportunity to discuss the application during the actual Planning Committe meeting and a vote will then be held on whether to support the application or not.

In light of the above, to say that the decision in relation to Tunstall School was pre-determined is factually incorrect. Also, if you had done your homework, you would have known that Swale BC planning committee has a recent history of voting against the Head of Planning's recommendations on politically sensitive applications such as this one, so much so, that he has taken recently to putting strongly worded warnings in a number of his reports.

 

#370: Guest - Re: Re: SBC PLANNING MEETING

Lets get a grip on the whole situation for or against the "build" whatever it is, school offices or factory, we have two sides, no sorry 3, people for and people against and those that do not have a view or simply just don't mind.

Both sides stop the stupid comments whether they be inaccurate or overly factual and in most cases just insulting / sarcastic and get on with the job in hand, "for or against"!

 

Sour words will not help anyside!

#371: lance fincham - Re: Re: Re: SBC PLANNING MEETING

Lance, once again (in my humble opinion) you are demonstrating leadership and maturity. Thank you.

Building on what you have said, I believe that it is vital that everyone with an opinion on the school's future, and particularly those who will be actually effected by the outcomes, regardless of what those outcomes are, should consider that whilst opinion has clearly been divided on this specific topic, that how they act after the outcomes are known will directly contribute to how others move forward, and how quickly that happens. Personally I sincerely hope that individuals, neighbours, groups and communities quickly focus on all the things they do have in common enabling a positive future all round.

Took me a while to track this page down, but the result may be recorded online

http://host1.atriumsoft.com/ePlanningOPSkent/tabPage1.jsp?aplId=57467 prior to a public announcement.

FOR ALL RECEIPIENTS OF THE NEW LEAFLET ( issue 5 )

THE DROP INs WILL BE AT THE VILLAGE HALL

Apologies

#374: - NEW LEAFLET

Yes Protect Tunstall have organised two Residents update meetings at Tunstall Village Hall for all those that will be affected by the proposed application

Wednesday 30th April between 7 - 9pm and then on Saturday 3rd May between 11am - 1pm

Feel free to drop in.