PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

Contact the author of the petition

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


Guest

#276 Re: Re: Re:

2014-02-24 17:14

#272: - Re: Re:

I'm sorry you thought it was rude, that wasn't the intention at all. I was merely saying that rather than a wholesale destruction of the landscape, I believe that the school provides value to the village.


Guest

#277 Re: Re: My opinion after looking at the facts

2014-02-24 17:16

#274: - Re: My opinion after looking at the facts

So, you're opposed to traffic, and also opposed to public transport to alleviate traffic? Not being picky, just seeking clarification.

Choose a nickname

#278 269#

2014-02-24 20:21

NEGATIVES
The fact that KCC own the land is the ONLY reason it's being put here.
The children can hardly walk up Tunstall Road to the church, no footways, so will have to circumvent the roads to get there. Then what? 420 children won't fit in, the church cannot cope with the 210 they have at the moment. At least there are footways, but are you seriously expecting children to walk from Lynsted, Newington, Wormshill, Rodmersham, let alone Iwade etc. I would love to know how many children that go to the current school live in Sterling, Roseleigh, Park Drive, Chegworth or Crancrook! Perhaps you know
As for the on site parking, it's less that the village hall carpark, and a 39 place carpark will not be enough when school is at full capacity - so guess what, they will use the drop off/collect area, so where will parents go??
Do you really consider the pedestrian crosses as good! Outside of driveways, crossing a busy road, with infants
As for the pond, I have never seen it empty. An accident waiting to happen. Or Flooding. I do hope that you are one of those near the new site, when in rains, and the very real possibility of sewage ends up on Tunstall Road
Land for schools should be without cost to KCC. FACT. And I have looked into the cost of buying Grade 2.Agricultural Land. Between £7000 - £10000 per acre!!!

POSITIVES
The school deserves better than this. The children deserve better than this. The residents deserve better than this


Guest

#279 confused.

2014-02-25 14:55

I stumbled upon this petition by accident as a Tunstall resident looking into the plans for the new school online and I have to say I am confused!!! why is everyone arguing?
It is my understanding that the case for a new school has already been agreed and now it is at the planning stage. A petition is therefore pointless! The comments on this site are also worthless. The SBC and KCC planning departments will certainly not see them so what is the point of it all?


Guest

#280 Re: confused.

2014-02-25 15:13

#279: - confused.

It inflates our self indulgent egos and allows us the basic human right to beat others over the heads with opinions they have no wish to hear.

It would be fundamentally UN-British to not have an avenue to moan and whine, and if we had a constitution then I would say that right would be amendment #1.

You are free to join in exploring your inner grump and help others express theirs too.  As a resident of Tunstall, are you for or against the new school, it doesn't matter if it will go ahead or not, if it's a good idea or not, your opinions are highly valued here and will only be thrown back at you if they disagree with someone elses.


Guest

#281 Re: confused.

2014-02-25 17:13

#279: - confused.

Thats where the argument starts it is a planning application and is and will be contested. It is not agreed and has now to go through several meetings to decide if ot has to go ahead or be delayed or be thrown out. Yes it is a talking point and no one just stumbles to this site. You have to find it. the argument is just two sides in dispute for or against simple as that.

 


Guest

#282 Re: Re: confused.

2014-02-25 17:17

#280: - Re: confused.

love it

 

keep going

 

xx

 


Guest

#283 Educational Need

2014-02-25 21:43

It has been suggested that the decision has already been made. I disagree. The KCC Education Committee that voted upon the educational need, was misled, you only have to watch the online webcast to see that

One member asked if any other site was considered. By carefully wording the reply, the only option was, not unless KCC paid for it! What about the free land that KCC had turned down on 106 agreements

Another member stated that he hoped that children from the north of Sittingbourne wouldn't have to get across to use the school. Really, why didn't he have access to the dot maps showing that is where the existing school come from

Why didn't they tell them it's Grade 2 Agricultural Land?, They should only use this as a last resort!! So why did KCC Officers not tell the truth".......

Simple. They had already made up their minds. Does that make it right, or should people object to the legal process which KCC are choosing to ignore



Guest

#284

2014-02-25 22:23

#283 Clutching at straws ....
Simon Harwood

#285 Agricultural Land Information

2014-02-25 22:32

From the DEFRA website ... The most productive and flexible land falls into Grades 1 and 2 and Subgrade 3a and collectively comprises about one-third of the agricultural land in England and Wales. About half the land is of moderate quality in Subgrade 3b or poor quality in Grade 4. Although less significant on a national scale such land can be locally valuable to agriculture and the rural economy where poorer farmland predominates. The remainder is very poor quality land in Grade 5, which mostly occurs in the uplands.
Descriptions are also given of other land categories which may be used on ALC maps.
Grade 1 - excellent quality agricultural land
Land with no or very minor limitations to agricultural use. A very wide range of agricultural and horticultural crops can be grown and commonly includes top fruit, soft fruit, salad crops and winter harvested vegetables. Yields are high and less variable than on land of lower quality.
Grade 2 - very good quality agricultural land
Land with minor limitations which affect crop yield, cultivations or harvesting. A wide range of agricultural and horticultural crops can usually be grown but on some land in the grade there may be reduced flexibility due to difficulties with the production of the more demanding crops such as winter harvested vegetables and arable root crops. The level of yield is generally high but may be lower or more variable than Grade 1.
Grade 3 - good to moderate quality agricultural land
Land with moderate limitations which affect the choice of crops, timing and type of cultivation, harvesting or the level of yield. Where more demanding crops are grown yields are generally lower or more variable than on land in Grades 1 and 2.

For a map of Swale's profile see page 3 of Swale Borough Council's Swale Landscape Character And Biodiversity Appraisal from September 2011 by following this link http://www.swale.gov.uk/assets/Planning-General/Planning-Policy/Landscape-Character-Appraisal-Final-Sept-2011/Land-Use-and-Agriculture2.pdf
someone looking down

#286 re 285 look up

2014-02-25 23:35

After looking at a map of areas of the country that are susceptible to sink holes I have found that the soil structure in this area is prone to this phenomenon. Just look at the M2. With any luck KCC's carbuncle will disappear as quickly as the central reservation did and the relevance of the grading of the land will be "underground"!

Guest

#287

2014-02-26 12:42

Amazing how the KCC hasnt read the National Planning Policy framework and worse than that is ignoring the fact that the building will be on Grade 2 agricultural land! children will have new school but will be starving in years to come. Extract from NPPF - Core Planning Principles - 1.take account of the different roles and character of different areas,promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of thecountryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;
2.contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and
reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land
of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this
Framework;
3. encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;
4. promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk
mitigation, carbon storage, or food production)

Guest

#288

2014-02-26 13:00

*******Plans are now on the UK planning website to view go into below website and type in Tunstall road. Click on comments and put in your objections*****

www.ukplanning.com/swale

Guest

#289 Re:

2014-02-26 13:32

#288: -

Or your support


Guest

#290 re 288 and 289

2014-02-26 15:14

if locals want to object or support, that is democracy in action. If J Bloggs, a transient and user of our area, wants to comment, then all polices that relate to their area I think is only right and proper that we can have the rights to a very loud say!

Guest

#291 re 289

2014-02-26 15:20

Sorry I thought this was a site for petition against new school being built!!!!! Suggest you are on the wrong site and go to Tunstall Mums facebook page.
L Bloggs

#292

2014-02-26 15:49

#290: - re 288 and 289

I'm not liking the sound of this Bloggs character... sounds shiftily shifty.. transienting in and out... ooer.

Democracy in action though should allow J Bloggs the same right to a voice as a local resident and vice versa.


Guest

#293 Proactive stance

2014-03-03 13:00

Be proactive should plans be approved.

1. Tunstall Parish Council to put in planning for restricted parking in Tunstall Road and surrounding Roads (residents permits) or double yellow lines in Tunstall Road. As I understand from Traffic survey within the plans the number of children coming to school by car will drop dramatically with majority walking or riding bikes so parking will not be needed.


2. How residents will put in for compensation due to increase in traffic and air and noise pollution.

Guest

#294 Re: Proactive stance

2014-03-03 20:14

#293: - Proactive stance

Oh  - yes - who do we ask for compensation?

LocalResident

#295 Consultation, consultation, consultation ... apparently not!

2014-03-03 22:30

#293: - Proactive stance

If this is genuinely what the Parish Council intend to do, shouldn't they at least canvas those that it will effect? We live on one of the roads likely to be effected and wouldn't want parking restrictions or permits as we have lots of friends and family visiting regularly. We'd be annoyed if our drive was blocked, which can be on the verge of happening at the moment, but that's something that can be sorted quickly with a polite word or two. Does anyone have any more details?


Guest

#296 Re: Consultation, consultation, consultation ... apparently not!

2014-03-03 23:16

#295: LocalResident - Consultation, consultation, consultation ... apparently not! 

 

That Is not the PC plan

Guest

#297 295##

2014-03-04 21:34

Any reference to what Tunstall Parish Council can or can't do, I think needs clarifying
They are a consultee, like SBC. If you can read the transport statement ( detailed below ) if there is a problem, KCC & Swale Joint Transportation Board will make any decision, NOT the PC

"It is understood that to allievate any concerns regarding overspill parking on the residential area of Cranbrook Drive; a Section 106 contribution will be made as part of this application. The money will be held by KCC for a period of time until the school reaches full occupation

If problems manifest themselves within this time period concerning parking along local residential areas such as Cranbrook Drive, the council will seek to implement parking controls in areas of concern. This process will involve consultation with local residents so as to ensure the controls are effective and sensitive to local needs and will form part of a formal TRO (traffic regulation order) procedure"

My personal view, they wouldn't put money in a pot if they didn't expect to use it Ps: Good Luck with the polite word!!!

Guest

#298

2014-03-05 06:41

We understand the need for any school to be able to teach in a modern fashion and if that means relocation that's fine but we feel sure that there are more suitable sites around town, the traffic difficulties that we already have to face in the Village on a daily basis are pretty bad which will only be compounded further by increasing the number of children that attend the school as a very small percentage of the children actually walk to the school.big is not necessary beautiful.

Guest

#299 Traffic Pollution and Health of Children

2014-03-05 10:55

Have the parents of children going to new school considered this may not be the best place to have your child go to on health reasons. There are strong links with autism and traffic pollution and the following is an extract from Asthma UK website.

Traffic pollution and the health effects on children being in school close to heavy traffic flow. Ref Defra and Asthma UK believes that pollution plays a role in causing asthma in children and adults, as well as being a trigger that can make people's asthma symptoms worse. There’s strong evidence linking the development of asthma with residence near roads with heavy traffic and particularly with vehicles such as diesel-fuelled buses and lorries. Some studies have also suggested a link with adult-onset asthma.
Two-thirds of people with asthma tell us that traffic fumes make their asthma worse, and 42% find that traffic fumes discourage them from walking or shopping in congested areas, while 85% of people with asthma tell us they are concerned about the effect that increasing vehicle fumes will have on their and their family's health in the future.

Guest

#300 Private and Statutory nuisance

2014-03-05 14:22

For future reference.

I am sure this wont happen but in the event that when or if building works start on the school it may be necessary to seek legal advice with regards nuisance where someone is doing something that adversely affects your property such as noise and smell. Rather than proceeding through local authorities it is best to go directly to magistrates court and have notice served as soon as possible. I have found the following website (www.richardbuxton.co.uk) for an environmental and public law team which details exactly what is involved and fees are paid on 'no win no fee basis' I am sure there are other law firms in our area that will provide same service, so I am not suggesting go to this company.