PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

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.