(not necessarily in the order made)
1. The proposal has all the hallmarks of two parties, in this case someone from the NHS and someone from RBK, apparently driven by Mr. Davey, dreaming up this scheme and then asking consultants to justify it. Just read the consultants’ reports carefully and see all the caveats they have put on their findings.
2. The consultation period has been too short for such a major development which will affect the Borough for over 50 years. Our team in the time allowed has found many flaws and inconsistencies and we are still finding them.
3. We are concerned that no mention is made of how this project is going to be funded. No mention of our concern is made in the papers prepared for you by the Officers, but it is raised in our paper. What it costs the Council Tax payer is of vital concern. If it is a PFI as we have heard it will be, then we all know that this can come at a high price over very many decades.
4. There is over development especially as there are other alternatives available and especially as it is stated that the space for the school is about 15% below the minimum standard for primary schools; we believe that if one considers the nursery and special needs, this could be even less.
5. Playing fields has been dropped completely from the proposal
6. The consultants state for the school as if it was a fait accompli that the school will undertake a number of measures to ensure that the number of children travelling to school by car is less than 21%. But it isn’t a fait accompli and may not be achievable and then what. There isn’t like in every other case a plan B.
7. The travel plan states that it is expected that 22% of the 100 plus staff at the Health Centre will travel by car – so it proposes 12 parking spaces – EXCLAMATION MARK.
8. There is no evidence that alternative sites were carefully considered. If one looked at the 80 page Government Guidelines on new Primary Sector schools, Kingston could negotiate to use the land behind Newant House, which has been derelict for 20 plus years, as a two form entry infants’ school. This would allow safe access to Fishponds for their open space requirements. The Junior school could be housed in a redeveloped King Charles Centre. This would allow safe crossing to the playing fields in the first part of Alexandra Rec. The Adult Education could be in a purpose built block on the Hospital or Dysart ground. The advantages are that one could start immediately with the infants’ school and delay the start of the junior school. Alternatively if there was an immediate need for junior school places one could offer them as well. And there are other options which are in our document.
9. We are not the only people making objections. Can there be another agenda, perhaps financial behind all this? To make the sums balance? If so we and I hope the Councillors also, have not been privy to this information.
Mr. Stephen Glands made the points
1. The present DC team are all bought in to the scheme so they cannot give an unprejudiced review of the applications. We request that an independent adjudicator sees over proceedings on 3rd March.
2. We request that more robust, evidence based transport studies are done
3. Full information provided about funding and the finances of the proposed scheme.
4. Full cost analysis of other potential sites and full information about why they were turned down by way of comparison with the hospital site.
NOTE
There was one person from the floor who spoke in favour of the scheme. He said we were letting down hundreds of children some as yet unborn if the Council did not proceed with the scheme. He blamed 200 people for trying to stop the scheme going ahead. It was pointed out that the Council had had plenty of time to find alternative schemes but had refused to consider any other scheme and it was not the fault of the residents if the scheme was a bad planning application..
1. The proposal has all the hallmarks of two parties, in this case someone from the NHS and someone from RBK, apparently driven by Mr. Davey, dreaming up this scheme and then asking consultants to justify it. Just read the consultants’ reports carefully and see all the caveats they have put on their findings.
2. The consultation period has been too short for such a major development which will affect the Borough for over 50 years. Our team in the time allowed has found many flaws and inconsistencies and we are still finding them.
3. We are concerned that no mention is made of how this project is going to be funded. No mention of our concern is made in the papers prepared for you by the Officers, but it is raised in our paper. What it costs the Council Tax payer is of vital concern. If it is a PFI as we have heard it will be, then we all know that this can come at a high price over very many decades.
4. There is over development especially as there are other alternatives available and especially as it is stated that the space for the school is about 15% below the minimum standard for primary schools; we believe that if one considers the nursery and special needs, this could be even less.
5. Playing fields has been dropped completely from the proposal
6. The consultants state for the school as if it was a fait accompli that the school will undertake a number of measures to ensure that the number of children travelling to school by car is less than 21%. But it isn’t a fait accompli and may not be achievable and then what. There isn’t like in every other case a plan B.
7. The travel plan states that it is expected that 22% of the 100 plus staff at the Health Centre will travel by car – so it proposes 12 parking spaces – EXCLAMATION MARK.
8. There is no evidence that alternative sites were carefully considered. If one looked at the 80 page Government Guidelines on new Primary Sector schools, Kingston could negotiate to use the land behind Newant House, which has been derelict for 20 plus years, as a two form entry infants’ school. This would allow safe access to Fishponds for their open space requirements. The Junior school could be housed in a redeveloped King Charles Centre. This would allow safe crossing to the playing fields in the first part of Alexandra Rec. The Adult Education could be in a purpose built block on the Hospital or Dysart ground. The advantages are that one could start immediately with the infants’ school and delay the start of the junior school. Alternatively if there was an immediate need for junior school places one could offer them as well. And there are other options which are in our document.
9. We are not the only people making objections. Can there be another agenda, perhaps financial behind all this? To make the sums balance? If so we and I hope the Councillors also, have not been privy to this information.
Mr. Stephen Glands made the points
1. The present DC team are all bought in to the scheme so they cannot give an unprejudiced review of the applications. We request that an independent adjudicator sees over proceedings on 3rd March.
2. We request that more robust, evidence based transport studies are done
3. Full information provided about funding and the finances of the proposed scheme.
4. Full cost analysis of other potential sites and full information about why they were turned down by way of comparison with the hospital site.
NOTE
There was one person from the floor who spoke in favour of the scheme. He said we were letting down hundreds of children some as yet unborn if the Council did not proceed with the scheme. He blamed 200 people for trying to stop the scheme going ahead. It was pointed out that the Council had had plenty of time to find alternative schemes but had refused to consider any other scheme and it was not the fault of the residents if the scheme was a bad planning application..
No comments:
Post a Comment