PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

Contact the author of the petition

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


Guest

#301 Re: Traffic Pollution and Health of Children

2014-03-05 15:46

#299: - Traffic Pollution and Health of Children

Which local school would you recommend that has significantly lower pollution levels than the proposed site?


Guest

#302 Re: Re: Traffic Pollution and Health of Children

2014-03-05 19:17

#301: - Re: Traffic Pollution and Health of Children

Unfortunately I do not own a pollution meter. Only schools in sittingbourne where pollution is low will be those in the countryside away from heavy traffic ie borden and bredgar. Sad, very sad ! Thanks to high levels of new housing. At least if the new school goes ahead wont be near dual carriageway unlike iwade primary, well for the moment!

 

 

 

52

#303 Re:

2014-03-06 23:14

#1: -  

 


Guest

#304 Re: Re: Re: Traffic Pollution and Health of Children

2014-03-08 16:54

#302: - Re: Re: Traffic Pollution and Health of Children

No pollution in Bredgar from the M2 then?


Guest

#305 Information

2014-03-14 14:37

Once again, KCC need our help

Please, if there are any of you out there who think that the relocation of Tunstall School is a bad idea, can we urge you to email in to Marissa.white@kent.gov.uk to tell her this please

The funding that has been given is NOT for relocation, but expansion of the existing site, as per Roger Gough, before any supporters jump up and down!!

This means that we need to remind them of this, and to remind them that there are no new housing developments within our local plan in the vicinity of Tunstall
It also needs mentioning that the existing site, is suitable for a 1FE School, but some small amount of work needs to be done, replacing these mobiles and putting in a permanent structure

KCC HAVE ONLY GIVEN 28 DAYS from 12th March 2014 - so please, email in or write to her at Brook House, Reeves Way, Whitstable CT5 3SS

Guest

#306 Re: Information

2014-03-14 19:31

#305: - Information

"....some small amount of work needs to be done, replacing these mobiles and putting in a permanent structure."

Really - have you been on the school site recently? What about the lack of space both indoor and outdoors?  A new structure would take up more space than the existing mobiles if they are to be a suitable size  - so the playground would become even smaller!

Mr Gough signed off the funding for expansion and relocation not for developing the existing site.


Guest

#307 Funding

2014-03-14 19:33

The funding is for new places it's not site dependent

Guest

#308 305 & 307 Funding

2014-03-14 20:35

If I may quote from Mr Goughs email ( sorry I can't give it to you!!! )
"You will see from the application that it was based on the school being re-built and expanded on the current proposed site ( post code ME9 8DX )"

As far as I know, the proposed site doesn't have a postcode, as it is without property. I believe that end of Tunstall are ME10 postcodes

Mr Gough, as I am sure would be the first to confirm, he has only signed off on "educational needs". That is why AMONGST the various documents on KCC/SW/0025/2014 is a site notice (or you can go and look at the proposed site, which states that the development is not contained within the local plan and why KCC is pushing it as hard as they can, because it's an uphill struggle

That is why there are TWO PROCESSES. Educational Need - & - Planning
I would respectfully suggest if you don't believe me, contact Mr Gough on roger.gough@kent.gov.uk and ask, like I did , it's also covered under a FOI request

Then, I suggest you check the full proposal with Marissa White, or, you can do exactly like I have done, and go straight to the Targeted Basic Needs Funds website, which will tell you, ITS PROJECT SPECIFIC, AND CANT BE TRANSFERED

Guest

#309 Re: 305 & 307 Funding

2014-03-15 12:56

#308: - 305 & 307 Funding

If I may quote from Mr Goughs email ( sorry I can't give it to you!!! )
"You will see from the application that it was based on the school being re-built and expanded on the current proposed site ( post code ME9 8DX )"

That is in contradiction to other statements made my Mr Gough, and without "proof" as in showing the actual response from him, could be deemed as inadmissable and just works on a page.


Guest

#310 308

2014-03-15 13:57

"INADMISSABLE"

This is a petition website, NOT a court of Law

With respect, you have access to get the same information as the rest of us, I suggest that instead of mistrusting my posting, you contact him, I have already given his email address, and perhaps after you do, perhaps you would kindly post an APOLOGY

I do not appreciate the implication

Guest

#311

2014-03-15 20:40

Go to
http://consultations.kent.gov.uk/consult.ti/TunstallSchool/consultationHome
Scroll down to Record of Decision - signed by Mr Gough. Relocation and Expansion.

The money is only available if an additional 210 places are provided - this clearly can't happen on the existing site.

Guest

#312 309-311

2014-03-15 21:57

You could also ask Kent County Council for details of FOI request number FOI/14/0363

That covers the copy of their application for funding, for expansion on ME9 8DX

Isn't the internet a wonderful thing to get facts

Guest

#313 Re: 308

2014-03-15 23:33

#310: - 308

I had an email from Superman, saying that he will personally lift the plot of land the current school is on and relocate it overnight single handed (sorry I can't share it with you either.)

 


Guest

#314 308

2014-03-16 08:53

Project specific is based on the school not a postcode- the money is allocated to provide 220 additional spaces

Guest

#315 R Gough's wise words ? ! ? !

2014-03-17 01:02

I know exactly what needs to be done. Forget Mr R Gough and what he said, says or writes and put the extra 200, 300 (or think of a number) of school places that are needed in Sittingbourne in an area where the children live. Or perhaps as many parents are happy to drive, the Kent Education committee may find that land is cheaper in perhaps Leysdown or Elmley. As some Sittingbourne children have already been offered Secondary school placements out of area I would assume that these parents will also be happy to do 10/20 mile round trips twice a day if allocated these places! Food for thought!
We in the Tunstall area should also give a thought to residents that live in the cul-de-sac that serves Landsdown School and their increase in traffic when that school is enlarged. No new developments there also.

Guest

#316 Re: R Gough's wise words ? ! ? !

2014-03-17 10:23

#315: - R Gough's wise words ? ! ? !

Alternatively, all the objectors from Tunstall could simply move further into the countryside to maintain their rural living experience.

Simon Harwood

#317 Clarification on the Education decision - text from "Public Notice"

2014-03-17 11:50

.... from the KCC website(http://consultations.kent.gov.uk/consult.ti/TunstallSchool/consultationHome) ...

-starts-
PUBLIC NOTICE

THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF TUNSTALL CE PRIMARY SCHOOL
(SUBJECT TO RELOCATION)

Notice is given in accordance with section 19(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that Kent County Council and The Diocese of Canterbury intend to make a prescribed alteration to Tunstall Church of England (Voluntary Aided) Primary School, Tunstall, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8DX from 1 September 2015.

It is proposed to enlarge the school to provide 60 places per year group, taking the total capacity of the school to 420. The proposed enlargement is dependent upon the rebuilding of the school as a two form entry primary school on a site located in Tunstall Road, 500m from the school’s current site. The school would admit 60 children into Year R in September 2015 and subsequent years, growing over a seven year period to reach a total capacity of 420.

The current capacity of the school is 210 and the proposed capacity of the new school building will be 420. The current admission number of the school is 30 and the proposed admission number will be 60.

This Notice is an extract from the complete proposal. Copies of the complete proposal can be obtained from Marisa White, Area Education Officer, Brook House, Reeves Way, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 3SS. Copies are also available at kent.gov.uk/schoolconsultations

Within four weeks from the date of publication of these proposals, any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending them to Marisa White, Area Education Officer at the above address or email: school.consultations@kent.gov.uk. The closing date for objections and comments is 9 April 2014.

Signed: Patrick Leeson, Corporate Director
Education, Learning & Skills
Kent County Council

Quentin Roper, Director of Education
The Diocese of Canterbury

Publication Date: 12 March 2014

Explanatory Note:
This proposal is subject to planning agreement for the new school buildings.
-ends-

I hope this helps clarify the intent of the educational decision that seems to be the basis of some confusion.

Douglass Adams

#318 Pat on the back for everyone

2014-03-21 10:35

I would just like to congratulate everyone on being non-abusive or derogatory for 4 whole days. Regardless of the final outcome, we can all be proud that this period of time has shown maturity and integrity through all.

Guest

#319 Re: Pat on the back for everyone

2014-03-21 11:09

Dougal

#320

2014-03-21 16:06

It's a long friday.....
who said life is fair!

#321 Re 318

2014-03-21 23:09

Unfortunately the outcome is the problem when the 'game' is not played on a level field. When one party is the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner the other party unfortunately end up on the wrong of the rope or headless. THE OTHER PARTY DOES NOT HAVE A VOICE.

Guest

#322 Re: Re 318

2014-03-23 17:00

#321: who said life is fair! - Re 318

Yes it has been very quiet on this site recently mainly becuase everyone has realised that it is so one sided. KCC and the Diocese have made a decision to build a new school without due and proper consultation to the local people, whom I will add they seem to have given no care or considertion to. A new Tunstall School will bring nothing to the area at all, except more traffic and more noise to a perfectully peaceful residential area. The Church of England who are supposed to be behind this build have not even shown their faces to the local people or even taken one moment to discuss this with the local population. Perhaps if they did people may understand more why it is being proposed. I understand why the Tunstall Mums may want this school but again they are demading something that is not required in the local area. School entry levals will not be required over the next couple of years for a 420 pupil school within the Tunstall area. An area that has more older people than younger families and has had no major builds and has no major build proposed within its locallity within the local plans.

I suggest kcc and the CofE really do think about this proposed idea and start to talk to the local people, not put ideas into peoples heads who migrate to the school and to the very few that actuallly live within either the council parish and lets call it the Church Border!!

Quoting ridiculous so called facts will not help, this is about people and the area they have chosen to live in.

England / UK is supposed to be mainly CofE so far I have seen no sign of any Christian Values.

 


Guest

#323 KCC WALK TO SCHOOL

2014-03-23 20:18

The suggestion that KCC has given for this relocation is to cover South Sittingbourne, with a "Church" school who dictate the admission criteria, location is not a deciding factor. If you go to Church in Bapchild, Bicknor, Borden, Bredgar, Eastchurch, Frinstead, Hartlip, Iwade, Lower Halstow, Milstead, Milton Regis, Minster in Sheppey with Halfway, Queenborough & Sheerness, Murston, Newington, Rodmersham, Sittingbourne, Stockbury, Tonge, Upchurch, Wormshill & Tunstall
Will be given priority over those who choose not to go to Church in Tunstall Road, Ruins Barn Road, Woodstock Road, Cromers Road, Chegworth Gardens or Cranbrook Drive - ALL ROADS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED

So why is KCC taking such an active role in Tunstall Church of England Voluntary Aided School, when all they have to do is provide the playing fields?????

Guest

#324 PUBLIC MEETING

2014-03-24 16:11

WE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED TODAY OF YET ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING

KCC PLANNING COMMITTEE WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE AT TUNSTALL VILLAGE HALL, 9th APRIL at 6pm

TO ALL, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT TO LISTEN TO OUR VIEWS, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT EDUCATIONAL, ITS PLANNING SO PLEASE BASE ANY COMMENTS YOU MAKE TO PLANNING ISSUES ONLY:
Not in local plan
Highways won't cope
Flood Risk
Transport Survey not done correctly
Carbon Footprint
Design not in keeping
The affect on our Important Local Countryside Gap
Simon Harwood

#325 Re: KCC WALK TO SCHOOL

2014-03-24 17:57

#323: - KCC WALK TO SCHOOL 

Please see below for details of Tunstall School's Admissions Criteria for 2014 taken from http://www.tunstall.kent.sch.uk/admissions.asp

Please note: only those children with an affiliation with Tunstall or Rodemersham churches get 'priority' over those living in the Ecclesiatical Parish. Therefore, not only those living in the roads mentioned in post "#323: KCC Walk to School" (Tunstall Road, Ruins Barn Road, Woodstock Road, Cromers Road, Chegworth Gardens, Cranbrook Drive) will get 'priority' over those at other churches, and other criteria, but also anyone living in roads including Park Drive, Park Avenue, Sterling Road, Bradley Drive, Woodside Gardens, Woodcourt Close, Roseleigh Road, Fernleigh Terrace, Doves Croft, and Minterne Avenue (part).

I hope this helps clarify that those attending churches in Bapchild, Bicknor, Borden, Bredgar, Eastchurch, Frinstead, Hartlip, Iwade, Lower Halstow, Milstead, Milton Regis, Minster in Sheppey with Halfway, Queenborough & Sheerness, Murston, Newington, Sittingbourne (ex Tunstall and Rodmersham), Stockbury, Tonge, Upchurch and Wormshill, would not currently be given priority over those non-churchgoers living not only the roads mentioned in post "#323: KCC Walk to School", but actually in many other roads.

Summary:

1. Looked after Children/Children in Local Authority Care

2. Children who will have a sibling in the school at the time of entry

3. Children with Tunstall or Rodmersham Church affiliation for at least 1 year

4. Children resident in the Ecclesiastical Parish of Tunstall (see http://www.achurchnearyou.com/ & enter ME9 8DX for a map that defines the Ecclesiastical Parish of Tunstall)

5. Children with affiliations to other Anglican Churches within the Deanery of Sittingbourne

6. Children with other Church affiliation at churches in membership with ‘Churches together in Sittingbourne’

7. Children of staff

8. Children with medical, health, social and special access reasons

9. When children in categories 1 to 7 have been admitted, any remaining places will be offered to those living closest to the school

 

Details:

1. Looked after Children/Children in Local Authority Care:

Children in Local Authority Care – a child under the age of 18 years for whom the local authority provides accommodation by agreement with their parents/carers (Section 22 of the Children Act 1989) or who is the subject of a care order under Part IV of the Act. This applies equally to children who immediately after being looked after by the local authority became subject to an adoption, residence or special guardianship order. (As defined by Section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or Section 8 or 14A of the Children Act 1989)

2. Children who will have a sibling in the school at the time of entry:

A brother or sister attending the school when the child starts. In this context brother or sister means children who live as brother or sister in the same house, including natural brothers and sisters, adopted siblings, step-brothers or sisters and foster brothers and sisters. The sibling link is maintained as long as the family lives at the same address as when the first child applied, or has moved closer to the school than when the first child was offered a place, or has moved to an address that is less than 2 miles from the school using the distance measured by the method outlined by the distance criteria.

3. Children with Tunstall or Rodmersham Church affiliation for at least 1 year:

Applications falling within category 3 will need to obtain the recommendation of their minister of religion confirming that children and either one or both parents have been affiliated with the church for a period not less than 12 months. See note regarding Membership.

4. Children resident in the Ecclesiastical Parish of Tunstall. See notes.

5. Children with affiliations to other Anglican Churches within the Deanery of Sittingbourne:

Applications falling within category 5 will need to obtain the recommendation of their minister of religion confirming that children and either one or both parents have been affiliated with the church for a period not less than 12 months. See note regarding Membership.

6. Children with other Church affiliation at churches in membership with ‘Churches together in Sittingbourne’:

Applications falling within category 6 will need to obtain the recommendation of their minister of religion confirming that children and either one or both parents have been affiliated with the church for a period not less than 12 months. See note regarding Membership.

7. Children of staff: Where the member of staff has been employed for at least two years at the time when the application is made; OR where the member of staff has been recruited to fill a vacant post for which there is a clear skill shortage.

8. Children with medical, health, social and special access reasons:

Medical, health, social and special access reasons will be applied in accordance with the school’s legal obligations, in particular those under the Equality Act 2010. Priority will be given to those children whose mental or physical impairment means they have a demonstrable and significant need to attend a particular school. Equally this priority will apply to children whose parents’/guardians’ physical or mental health or social needs mean that they have a demonstrable and significant need to attend a particular school. Such claims will need to be supported by written evidence from a suitably qualified medical or other practitioner who can demonstrate a special connection between these needs and the particular school.

9. When children in categories 1 to 7 have been admitted, any remaining places will be offered to those living closest to the school:

Nearness of children's homes to school - we use the distance between the child’s permanent home address and the school, measured in a straight line using Ordnance Survey address point data. Distances are measured from a point defined as within the child’s home to a point defined as within the school as specified by Ordnance Survey. The same address point on the school site is used for everybody.