PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

#225: tsk - Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

No one has a higher status here not even you but some respect to those who have opposing views would be nice and some respect for the people in Tunstall Road who really will be giving up a lot of what they have put into life if this scheme goes ahead.

#226: - Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

I have total respect for anyone that respects others. I truly believe that this anonymous posting is a large cause of people being able to post rude and offensive comments with no consideration.

Could you please, for the sake of clarity, explain what it is you will be giving up if the school is built.  I think a lot of the petty arguments are coming from a misunderstanding of peoples viewpoints. While it may make total sense to you when you say "give up a lot of what they have put into life" - I'm not sure people understand what that means.

Parents too give up a lot supporting their children, and their plea is for a great school to continue to thrive (and not perish). The one line argument from supporters of the school is that "should the expansion and relocation not go ahead, the school will effectively be reduced in size, receive less funding and not be the fine place it is today".

So as you can see, both viewpoints are passionately given, and the supporters of the school are not doing it to annoy to damage residents lifestyles. The current school is not fit for purpose and KCC are proposing the expansion, this is the best and only option currently presented to all sides. From supporters of the schools perspective, this could truly be the only chance they get to "save the school" and quality of education that has been provided there for many years.

#227: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

Believe me I know what is like to bring up several Children and how hard choices are for parents but they are choices. the school may well be reduced in size if the new proposal does not go ahead but it will not close. Some of the funding for the new school should be used to replace "cabins" and improve facilities at the current site. The people in Tunstall road who are opposite the site have good sized houses which many of them have worked hard and long to keep hold of, many are now retired and do not want an extra increase in traffic, a large car park opposite and a building that does not have any resemblance to anything in the area, the noise will be added extra that they will have to suffer along with the light pollution from the new build. They will in affect open the cutains every day now and may be have to look at something that resembles an Asda or Morrison store. They deserve the right to a say and that is what they are all doing (except for a tiny minority). Children are important in life but they do not pay the mortgages and rates etc It is the adults in this case that are important and that is why they are standing up to KCC, not individuals but it is KCC that we are all against , THE PLANNING APPLICATION and the complete just within the law way this has been handled.

#228: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

One of the main issues with the earmarked cash is that it is only able to be used for "new" buildings, there is no government funds available to replace or improve the current site.  There are also issues with part of the land being "leased" currently and the extent to which it can be used.

All your concerns are valid for local residents and I wish you luck (whilst politely disagreeing) in tackling the injustice you feel. I shall continue to campaign for a school which looks to the future of Tunstall, Sittingbourne and the country as a whole. I firmly believe that good schools like Tunstall are much needed, and that it will provide not only the future residents of Tunstall, but leaders of the town, of the KCC, etc.

I am glad you believe the school will not close, although the evidence points to the contrary, it would be a great loss to Tunstall, Sittingbourne and all those that may one day be educated there.

#229: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

No the targeted basic need money is for increasing the school to two FE, not just for new buildings, no funds have been bid for to improve the site KCC found money in their budget fir the new school and you can bet they can find money to keep it 1FE, there is also a great deal of money in central govt fir schools that remains unallocated, wouldn't it also be great to see the diocese put their hands in their own pockets. The leased land can be purchased that was in the schools plan from the start. Also the evidence is that the school will not close as stated by roger Gough, roger truelove, lee burgess. If the area faces a shortfall then they will not reduce a school in size and exashabate the situation.

#230: Choose a nickname - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

Yes the money is for an increase to 2FE, however that is impossible with the school on it's current site, even with development the plot of land there is only so large and would not accomodate 2FE.

KCC have stated that the likely course of action will be to reduce to 1/2 FE if this doesn't go ahead, which of course doesn't mean "close". But it is a natural progression that with reduced entry/reduced budget/reduced resource, that the school will not be able to perform to it's current standards. With a reduced in-take, access to any money to improve the current site will be virtually impossible and that points towards eventual closure.

So no-one is saying that if it doesn't go ahead the school will close within a year, but it is a high probability that the school will enter a gradual decline which makes it untenable compared to whatever alternative "new" school has to arrive in place of the proposed development.

#231: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

Yes I know 2fe can't go on the current site allot of the opposition is the fact that the school would be 2fe and who knows in future 3fe etc. 1\2 fe will only happen if mobiles are removed and not replaced, this is not a certainty. So even if it did go to 1\2fe would tunstall be the only school like it? No it won't there are lots of 1\2fe and less than 1\2fe schools which have been going for years and will continue to do so.

It is because of incompetent management of the' schooling problems' within Swale. If schools had been built when the need was apparent to all, in the appropriate locations, we would not be in dire straights now. Please do not blame central government for spending restraints, the problems go back in time when money was spent with gay abandon, but not in this case, where appropriate!

#232: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

Sorry that is incorrect, half fe is with the mobiles. There will still be the same number of classroms, just filled with half the amount of children.  The problem is not that a half fe school can't survive, it's that the resources on the current site simply aren't adequate, even at half intake it is not ideal to have the library/special tutoring/music lessons/only route through the school to be occupying the same space.  Half a dozen toilets for over 200 pupils is not enough (2 are outside).

So when a school is already earmarked as being unsuitable, as Tunstall has repeatedly, it will be first on the block to have it's provision repurposed and its pupils and staff placed elsewhere.

#233: - re 229

Well, we can either live in the past and argue history that isn't going to change, or look to the future to resolve the problem at hand.  In all the debates I haven't noticed any local land owners chime in offering to exchange their land for the proposed site... where else is there in the vacinity that is available?

Unfortunately the present is what it is, by decisions made in the past. They are intertwined! Perhaps decision makers should be made accountable for their errors/actions! I note from your second sentence that you have an issue with land owners. The only land I own is my garden.

#236: - re 235

Haha, no, I have no problem with land owners. It was just a simple thought that there IS land up near the current school end, which is where I actually thought the build would be (virtually across the road from current location). However someone obviously owns that land and would need to want to not own it.  It's a moot point, guess I shouldn't use a discussion thread to think out loud :D

Very well put In a polite manner- 229.

I for one could afford to live on Tunstall road and indeed would have bought the current house for sale if it had been for sale when I was looking. The school would have been an added bonus. If built, it should increase house prices and make local houses quicker to sell.

I live on Tunstall road and hate all this arguing. I do not want people knocking on my door trying to scare me and I do not want to receive misleading leaflets. I need to remain anonymous as my neighbours are so aggressive in their views. I support the future and think we should be proud of the new school. Please stop being rude to each other. Maybe this petition should stop as if is inflaming unnecessary arguments.
Perhaps all sides can agree to only talk about facts not scaremongering or opinions. I cannot say openly how I feel and there are many more like me behind closed doors . Is this how people should be treated? The children are our future and we should welcome them.

#239: None - Please stop this arguing

Unfortunately in a situation like this you will have two sides to the story. i have not noticed anyone being rude to each other just human beings expressing feelings. No one has to hide behind closed doors and certainly no one is knocking on your door being aggresive. You may well want to live opposite a large school but others do not and unfortunately in Tunstall Road I suspect you are in the minority. I have not seen any misleading leaflets but leaflets that give information about what could happen. Its simple if you do not want it then please bin it. There is certainly no scaremongering only the fact that KCC want to relocate the school and local residents do not want it relocated.

#238: Guest - Well said 229

Unfortunately the Houses in Tunstall road will certainly devaluate when the school is built (or if) the houses in other roads should increase as they are in the price range that people will pay to live within a catchment area. People do not pay £450,000 to £750,00 (and more in a couple of cases) to live on top of a school. they will spend the money to live further out and of course travel in. Not an argument just a point.

Absolutely agree. All this arguing is awful. I too live very close by and think the new school is a great idea. I feel bullied into saying I oppose the school but quite frankly I don't. Please would the local residents stop arguing, you are not doing our neighbourhood any favours for potential house buyers if they see how unfriendly some of you can be. I hope I will not receive any unfriendly feedback on my post as it his whole thing is really upsetting me.

I live near the proposed and have to pretend that I am against the school because of the way someone wouldn't leave my door until I agreed with them.i feel as if I don't want to go out until it is built.

Parents please note gang there are lots of us locals who do support the school. It's just that we don't feel that we can do it openly. There are some very people who passionately want the school to do something else and we don't want to feel unwelcome in our own roads. We are silent but many.

#234: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

If the mobiles are retained/replaced then it won't be half fe.the school has not been marked as unsuitable, and current ofsted results have cleared up that issue. If the new school does not go ahead, then there are other options that can be looked at.

#239: None - Please stop this arguing

Yes we should stick to facts and people who are pro new school and who are in position of trust should not be going round scaremongering about school closures.

#246 there is not a right or wrong answer in this debate. What is important is people feel able to share their views in an environment where they will not fear backlash if their views differ to that of some of those who oppose the expansion and relocation of the school. If someone has a genuine fear that the future of the school on the existing site is at risk they have just as much right to voice that as say someone opposed to the plans who may fear an increase in traffic. People should not be shouted down on their opinions regardless of whether they are for or against the plans. Respect on all sides is key here.

Below is part of an email I received from Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform KCC which was originally part of an email to Lee Burgess, KCC Councillor for Swale Central and Chair of Tunstall Parish Council sent on 11th February 2014.
-starts-
Starting with the issue as to whether or not the school is at risk of closure, my view (and I think I have stated it publicly) matches what I recall being said by Patrick and Marisa at Education Cabinet Committee. That is that, if the school were to revert to being half FE (of which more in a moment), then it does not follow that it would close. However, the school would certainly be more vulnerable because it would be less financially resilient and less able to deliver the breadth of curriculum choice.

In terms of Plan B, of course there is always a need to have such plans because, quite properly,
we cannot prejudge the outcome of any of these processes, in particular planning. However, there are a number of difficulties with the option of 1FE on the current site:
- Any replacement of the mobile classrooms would require planning permission, and when this was most recently sought for the current mobiles the Planning Committee made it clear that they expected a longer term solution for Tunstall School to be put in place. This raises the question of having to go back to half FE
- As you will know far better than I, the issues around parking and traffic have proven intractable. They were brought to my attention by one of your predecessors long before I took on the Education portfolio, and despite many discussions on this subject there appears to be no long term solution. If anything, the introduction of yellow lines has exacerbated the situation
- There is no obvious source of funding for new buildings. We have money from national government earmarked for Tunstall as part of Targeted Basic Need, but that is predicated on expansion. The modernisation budget is zero; government expects us to put all except a small maintenance pot towards basic need, and indeed to top that up with funds of our own
-ends-

In a subsequent email to me that I received on 15th February 2014, which Lee was copied on, Roger stated the following ...
-starts-
If there is one point that, looking back on my note, is perhaps not as clear as it might be (and Lee, my apologies if this was a bit obscure), it is that I am not stating anywhere that there is any explicit ‘Plan B’. The point I was trying to make was that, if the current proposal were to fall on planning grounds, we would of course have to find other ways to provide the school places required. What form that would take is very hard to say, but I have indicated below (SH: above in this post) some of the difficulties with the idea of having a 1FE school on the current site. Since the current proposal is for a 2FE school KCC would also need to find extra capacity elsewhere if the outcome was for a 1FE or half FE school remaining in Tunstall.
-ends-

This information has already been shared with a member of Protect Tunstall and on the Tunstall Mums Facebook page. I offer no opinion, I am merely sharing something I think anyone interested in the school discussions will find interesting and useful.

Also please note that the planning permission granted in 2012 for 2 of the 3 "temporary buildings" that house classrooms (accounting for 3 classes) at the current site is about to expire, along with the building that houses the PTA garage and some of the toilets. The previous application in 2012 was objected to by both Swale Borough Council and Tunstall Parish Council (information on what the specific objections were can be found in the report produced at the time). I also offer no opinion on this.

If you want to read some of what I do think, see post 157.

I know Tunstall very well. Lived here many years. My kids went to school there in the dark ages! What piece of land exactly are you referring to?

The relocated school is looking to move to the field opposite the modern looking building on Tunstall road. Looking at the leaflet received this week, it fits in beautifully with that house and both represent being modern and moving forward. Well done to that house in leading the way with modern architecture and a new feel. You should be congratulated.