PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

Contact the author of the petition

This discussion topic has been automatically created of petition PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY.

Choose a nickname

#26 against this petition

2014-01-31 19:18

The land has been intended for educational use for a long time......It was clearly stated that there are no plans for houses at the public planning meeting........ It is a well known and documented fact that houses close to excellent schools go up in value.....people near the current school (not all however) have constantly complained about everything from planning permission for mobiles,parking issues,even the style of fencing used. The school even has to pay to use the village hall for its Nativity play......facilities in the current school are pretty awful and completely outdated but I guess few of the objectors have bothered to visit for themselves.....I live in full view of the proposed site and I'm totally in favour. What a wonderful opportunity to make a massive difference for future generations. We live in the modern world and our children deserve modern facilities. (The plans have already been submitted so I think this petition is rather too late)


Guest

#27

2014-01-31 22:03

Before they build/or expand any more schools this side of town, I need to know why no schools have been planned where all the new houses are in Senora Fields and Kemsley. Tunstall has a perfectly decent school where it is and long may it continue. Build there.


Guest

#28 Re: against this petition

2014-01-31 23:55

#26: Choose a nickname - against this petition 

 you are correct to a point, at the public meating the question was asked about the homes to be built and if you remember the speaker very carefully worded reply to that question was the council has no plans to build homes on or near the land but they coudn't stop a third party from building there and as the council tried and failed to build a housing estate near kent science park (at the moment) it would seem logical for them to try to build them near the school. Another point how do you think they are going to pay for the new school when they admit they haven't got enough money the normal way is by selling land for a third party to build on. So as you can see the reply "we are not building homes" doesn't really meen anything, as its not the council who build them. If the new school goes ahead we will see if the council are being honest, but of course by then its too late.


Guest

#29

2014-02-01 00:00

It is important to the life of villages that the local schools are for the local children, that said in today's economic climate economies of scale clearly have to play a part and therefore by increasing the number pupils will, even if marginally, reduce the cost per head.
In the case of the Tunstall school there is the opportunity to merge with the Borden Village School, also owned by the CoE and apparently struggling with high property, heating & maintenance costs,at a location somewhere midway between the two villages,which might well have better access options than the proposed new location for the Tunstall school.
Making the correct decision, taking possible future expansion needs into account,is a very important one as it will have to meet those needs for many decades to come.

Guest

#30 Re: Re:

2014-02-01 22:59

#11: WisdomIsBuiltOnFacts - Re:

 

where is democracy?

#31

2014-02-01 23:07

Really is that something to be proud of! Don't our children have the right to enjoy our countryside?Also what about the rights of children of other faiths having good education? We all pay taxes what ever our religious inclination, why is this a c of e school??


Guest

#32

2014-02-02 12:35

Stop our village communities becoming the dustbins for Greater London. (Send them to Cameron's constituency)

Guest

#33

2014-02-02 14:30

you cant build a school on green belt, and the land and surrounding area would not be logically. if you build a school there housing will follow, and all that land will be ruined. the school is not needed there. council re-think

Guest

#34

2014-02-02 18:15

I have read all these postings, and think that there are things need clarifying
Firstly, Tunstall Village Hall. They asked Tunstall School what they wanted, and they asked for a drive thru drop off/ collect facility. It worked fine, until the school changed its policy to "bring your child in". This means parents now PARK Many of you may not know, one parent who turned up early to a locked gate, used "bolt croppers" to remove the padlock. Please remember, all the plans for the new school, with twice the children, will have the same size car park as the village hall, for a DRIVE IN/ DROP OFF Parents will to be expected NOT TO PARK This is the worry, as residents know the road has no FOOTPATH, IT FLOODS, and large vehicles use it. I wouldn't want to cross the road, let alone.a child

Guest

#35 Re: Observations

2014-02-02 21:46

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

 


Guest

#36 Item 10#

2014-02-02 21:57

No one disagrees with the size of the current footpath to the current school, but there isn't going to be a footpath on Tunstall Road! Is that safer then than what is already there? Also, I agree, children deserve the best education, irrespective of postcode, so why should local children have to travel to Newington because they don't go regularly to church?? Is that the Christian way??

Unless the school or the Governors change the criteria , a church going family in Canterbury will stand more chance of getting in that if you lives across the road and you don't!

Guest

#37

2014-02-03 07:11

.

Guest

#38

2014-02-03 10:08

The proposed new location is in a dangerous place as far as parking and traffic is concerned. Proposed entrance to the school is almost on a blind corner. Not to mention using prime agricultural land.

Guest

#39

2014-02-03 10:55

Ill conceived with little or no regard to the safety of either residents, pedestrians or motorists. Chosen because KCC own the land. Hence no purchase costs for them. Traffic volumes through this little hamlet are already heavy at precisely the times at which parents deliver or collect their children. Everyone please be aware that KCC's whole raison d'être for this is to allow the 'bussing' of children in from North of Sittingbourne. This will cease to be a community school. Come clean KCC

Guest

#40 Re: against this petition

2014-02-03 12:45

#26: Choose a nickname - against this petition

WELL LUCKY YOU

Just becuase you would like to live opposite a major school with traffic and 420 plus screaming children does NOT mean that everyone else does. Min legal consultation has been used here in hope that everyone will roll over, well Mr Resident ..they won't. Plans may have been submitted but now the fight really starts. No a petition is not too late . KCC will have to listen. You are either a parent of children at the school or a school governor. Considering the school is a of C of E denomination you are not being very Christian like!!!

No loving your neighbour here!!


Guest

#41

2014-02-04 10:39

I wish to protect the current staus & position of Tunstall School. The relocation and expansion on a site with limited country road access will cause serious traffic and pedestrian problems and be liable to cause serious injury to both parents & children in their attempt to access the new school. There is just no need for a new school.

Guest

#42

2014-02-04 10:49

As a local community I am totally against the proposal of relocating and expanding Tunstall School to a site behind Bottom Pond, on Tunstall Road, as there is actually no need for a larger school for the following reasons:-
• The existing school is in the heart of Tunstall and should not be allowed to be moved and increase the local urbanisation.
• They is no need to increase the school size when the birth rate is actually falling in the locality.
• It should not be allowed to be built on green belt land.
• With the increase in traffic in the locality of the school it will cause increased traffic congestion as vehicles try to turn right or left when exiting, at the same time as arrivals to the school will try to gain access using the same single entrance/exit point.
• It will be a high risk danger area for traffic and pedestrian accidents. It is likely that somebody will be injured at some time.
• The fact that it will become a high congestion area it is very likely that parents will not use the parking spaces in the school provided and park in the locality – Tunstall Road, Cranbrook Drive, Chegworth Gardens, Woodstock Road, Cromers Road, Park Drive & Ruins Barn Road and then walk their children into school. This is really what happens in most schools set amongst and close to housing developments.
• The existing school has 60 parking spaces in Tunstall Village hall including 4 disability parking bays and only just copes with the existing traffic volume. The new school has set aside the same number (60) parking spaces with a planned doubling of school places this then becomes non-viable plan and will then once again cause serious congestion and danger in the area as parents attempt to park off site.
• The original plan also had provision for a nursery school on the proposed site, for 30 children. In the second plan this has been dropped, however the land space set aside has not been reduced. In fact by now changing the plan from a single storey development to a more visible 2 storey school it has increased available land space on the site. Therefore at a later stage it is very likely that the nursery will get built, thus increasing the traffic numbers again. This is really confirmed that the Government want to see all children in nursery education from the age of 2.
• The congestion is added to by virtue that traffic in Tunstall Road has increased over recent years with expansion of Kent Science Park – which is expanding continuously. Traffic to and from the KSP from the A249 use the back roads via Oad Street through Tunstall Road to Ruins Barn Road. It is also noticeable how the traffic using Woodstock Road has increased.
• The land is owned by the KCC and it is virtually being given to the CofE to build the school thus minimising the cost to the KCC.


Guest

#43

2014-02-04 11:31

What a tragedy it would be for our countryside if this school is allowed to be built. Not to mention the nightmares that would come with it, both driving around an already busy junction and walking.

Guest

#44 Re:

2014-02-05 08:57

#42: - well said no more PUBLIC MONEY should be wasted on this fruitless plan. If it really is a C of E school then the CHURCH should pay for everypenny. It should not come from the public purse.The village school should not be relocated and the current school should remain in its current position have a smaller intake and have some money spent on it. Tunstall is a village and should not become just another urban statistic....DO NOT BUILD HERE!!

 


Guest

#45

2014-02-05 09:33

The village school should be kept for the village. If more schools are required in Sittingbourne build them where all the new houses are, not in our lovely village.

Guest

#46

2014-02-05 10:05

We don,t want the warm, friendly,protective village school replaced by a much larger,faceless new school which inevitably would get bigger and bigger over the the years.There is already traffic chaos at school times and with 200 or more extra cars there would be gridlock.New pupils would come from all over East Kent.New schools should be built where those children live!

Guest

#47

2014-02-05 14:39

I do not want to see the school situated in a new site as the road is too narrow and dangerous. I do not want the school to increase in size so dramatically and want them to stay on the same site with a rebuild incorporating the field behind them. It would be an eyesore to to the beautiful countryside surrounding it.

Guest

#48

2014-02-05 14:48

The original plan for a school of the same size was within the realms of possibility , but double the size and in the future tripling ???. Even with the original single entry plan, major road improvements were necessary and as we know these are not being considered. It's a non starter !

Guest

#49

2014-02-05 15:10

As was stated in a previous comment there are covenants to prevent house building on KCC land. We all know how they can be overturned and anyway there is plenty of privately owned land nearby ripe for building under government duress. Yup looks like another Iwade on the way, or should we just rename it Tunstall SE103 and open a pie and mash shop in the old school. Anyone want to buy a blighted house in the parish?.

Guest

#50 perhaps the school mums would like it!!

2014-02-05 15:17

#49: -