Portland Academy plans for Southwell now on display

Dorset Echo: Portland Academy plans for Southwell now on display Portland Academy plans for Southwell now on display

THE planning application for Portland Academy at Southwell has been resubmitted.

The updated plans for the Isle of Portland Aldridge Community Academy at Southwell Business Park have now been submitted and are now on display at Weymouth and Portland Borough Council's planning website.

The Academy Trust temporarily withdrew its application for the site in December to allow time to address concerns raised about travel and the revised plans also include measures to ensure the important ecological nature of the site is protected and enhanced.

People have until March 27 to comment on the plans.

Further information is now available about the academy's travel plan and provides information about how students, parents and staff will travel to the new site, based upon a survey.

The plans show how the academy plans to manage travel between the two proposed campuses at Southwell Park and Osprey Quay, and gives more information about the provision of dedicated buses across the whole of Portland.

The plan outlines the schemes and targets the academy will employ to encourage car and vehicle sharing to reduce and ease any potential for congestion around the site and gives full details of highway improvements which will be undertaken as part of the Southwell Business Park development work.

Development work to provide safe and enhanced cycle and pedestrian access to the site has also been highlighted and concerns raised over ecological issues have been addressed.

IPACA Principal Alison Appleyard welcomed the new plans.

She said: “This month has seen the handover from Dorset County Council of our first new campus at Osprey Quay. The reactions of the students who have been to the Osprey Quay building has been real excitement.

“The new Southwell Park campus will deliver that same high standard of 21st Century facilities for all of our children, and enable us to realise the founding four schools' original vision of an all-through Academy, where the educational focus is on the stage each student has reached individually, not their age group."

Dorset County Councillor for Portland Harbour Tim Munro said: “The application, with the revised detail around transport and environmental issues, demonstrates their commitment to and understanding of the local wishes and concerns.

“This demonstration of positive response to the communities concerns, augers well for the partnership of community and Academy.”

The application can be seen in full by going to Dorsetforyou.com and searching for planning applications, choose Weymouth and Portland Borough Council- planning application search and quote reference Application WP/13/00101/FUL. Or people view the plans at the borough council offices at North Quay and people can submit comments in writing to Development Services, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, North Quay, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 8TA.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:41pm Wed 27 Feb 13

iampuzzled says...

'PLANS for a new Portland Academy building'
I thought that they planned to re-furbish the tatty old buildings.
'PLANS for a new Portland Academy building' I thought that they planned to re-furbish the tatty old buildings. iampuzzled

12:44pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Islandjim says...

The Re submitted application does not even address the reason why it was not being supported by the council, have they lost faith in there own plans or are they just stupid?
The Re submitted application does not even address the reason why it was not being supported by the council, have they lost faith in there own plans or are they just stupid? Islandjim

10:00pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Bollard says...

Let's hope they've learnt to stop lying to the residents of Portland.
Let's hope they've learnt to stop lying to the residents of Portland. Bollard

10:32pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Westwindblower says...

It appears Southwell will become a busy place to be if this plan goes ahead. Reap lane, Ripcroft, Sweethill lane will become very busy roads at peak times with many holdups and creation of a dangerous area for children as there are many cars parked and narrow roads. I do not think a residential estate should be subject to such a huge infux of people and traffic. I was looking at Budmouth School why cant Portland have a decent purpose built school within its own grounds not a second best unsuitable conversion of a very old building with residential flats and industrial units.
It appears Southwell will become a busy place to be if this plan goes ahead. Reap lane, Ripcroft, Sweethill lane will become very busy roads at peak times with many holdups and creation of a dangerous area for children as there are many cars parked and narrow roads. I do not think a residential estate should be subject to such a huge infux of people and traffic. I was looking at Budmouth School why cant Portland have a decent purpose built school within its own grounds not a second best unsuitable conversion of a very old building with residential flats and industrial units. Westwindblower

9:51am Thu 28 Feb 13

echo-reader says...

WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL

WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT,

BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL
WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL echo-reader

10:21am Thu 28 Feb 13

Islandjim says...

echo-reader wrote:
WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL

WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT,

BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL
Put this in an objection letter to the planners so it counts for something!
[quote][p][bold]echo-reader[/bold] wrote: WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL[/p][/quote]Put this in an objection letter to the planners so it counts for something! Islandjim

10:40am Thu 28 Feb 13

Bob Goulding says...

It seems to me that, unless your objections were raised via the 'official' consultation process, they would have been largely ignored.

If you visit the planning website as suggested in the Echo's report and open the document below you will see that there is very little to suggest that there are still real concerns in the community about the suitability of the location and the feasibility of upgrading and maintaining the building and facilities to the planned standard within budget.

http___planning.weym
outh.gov.uk_WAM_doc_
Planning.pdf_extensi
on=.pdf

In Section 6 (CONSULTATION FEEDBACK) you will find the following table of results:

General attitude towards proposals:
19% (32) Broadly in favour
22% (37) Supportive with reservations
16% (27) Neutral/general enquiries
43% (74) Broadly against

The views of only 170 people are represented here of which 43% are against the proposals. If you ignore the Neutral/general enquiries segment the percentage against the proposals would rise to almost 52% whereas the percentage in favour of the proposals would rise to only just over 22%.

In my view this does not represent strong enough support for the plans to enable them to be passed by the planning authority.
It seems to me that, unless your objections were raised via the 'official' consultation process, they would have been largely ignored. If you visit the planning website as suggested in the Echo's report and open the document below you will see that there is very little to suggest that there are still real concerns in the community about the suitability of the location and the feasibility of upgrading and maintaining the building and facilities to the planned standard within budget. http___planning.weym outh.gov.uk_WAM_doc_ Planning.pdf_extensi on=.pdf In Section 6 (CONSULTATION FEEDBACK) you will find the following table of results: General attitude towards proposals: 19% (32) Broadly in favour 22% (37) Supportive with reservations 16% (27) Neutral/general enquiries 43% (74) Broadly against The views of only 170 people are represented here of which 43% are against the proposals. If you ignore the Neutral/general enquiries segment the percentage against the proposals would rise to almost 52% whereas the percentage in favour of the proposals would rise to only just over 22%. In my view this does not represent strong enough support for the plans to enable them to be passed by the planning authority. Bob Goulding

12:29pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Portland Frankie says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
It seems to me that, unless your objections were raised via the 'official' consultation process, they would have been largely ignored.

If you visit the planning website as suggested in the Echo's report and open the document below you will see that there is very little to suggest that there are still real concerns in the community about the suitability of the location and the feasibility of upgrading and maintaining the building and facilities to the planned standard within budget.

http___planning.weym

outh.gov.uk_WAM_doc_

Planning.pdf_extensi

on=.pdf

In Section 6 (CONSULTATION FEEDBACK) you will find the following table of results:

General attitude towards proposals:
19% (32) Broadly in favour
22% (37) Supportive with reservations
16% (27) Neutral/general enquiries
43% (74) Broadly against

The views of only 170 people are represented here of which 43% are against the proposals. If you ignore the Neutral/general enquiries segment the percentage against the proposals would rise to almost 52% whereas the percentage in favour of the proposals would rise to only just over 22%.

In my view this does not represent strong enough support for the plans to enable them to be passed by the planning authority.
Oh dear Bob.... if you exclude those that are neutral you end up with 52% against and 48% in favour or supportive with reservations. Statistically this is not significant. If you insist that those that are supportive but with reservations cannot be included, it then gives a 70/30 split against the academy (out of 106 people). However, that is poor maths being used to bias an answer in your favour. Add to that the fact that only 170 people bothered to comment, this is too small a number of respondants on an island of 12,000 souls and a school populatioon of around 2000 to be able to draw any firm conclusions from the data. The plans should be passed on their merit and not because a small number of people don't like change. Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: It seems to me that, unless your objections were raised via the 'official' consultation process, they would have been largely ignored. If you visit the planning website as suggested in the Echo's report and open the document below you will see that there is very little to suggest that there are still real concerns in the community about the suitability of the location and the feasibility of upgrading and maintaining the building and facilities to the planned standard within budget. http___planning.weym outh.gov.uk_WAM_doc_ Planning.pdf_extensi on=.pdf In Section 6 (CONSULTATION FEEDBACK) you will find the following table of results: General attitude towards proposals: 19% (32) Broadly in favour 22% (37) Supportive with reservations 16% (27) Neutral/general enquiries 43% (74) Broadly against The views of only 170 people are represented here of which 43% are against the proposals. If you ignore the Neutral/general enquiries segment the percentage against the proposals would rise to almost 52% whereas the percentage in favour of the proposals would rise to only just over 22%. In my view this does not represent strong enough support for the plans to enable them to be passed by the planning authority.[/p][/quote]Oh dear Bob.... if you exclude those that are neutral you end up with 52% against and 48% in favour or supportive with reservations. Statistically this is not significant. If you insist that those that are supportive but with reservations cannot be included, it then gives a 70/30 split against the academy (out of 106 people). However, that is poor maths being used to bias an answer in your favour. Add to that the fact that only 170 people bothered to comment, this is too small a number of respondants on an island of 12,000 souls and a school populatioon of around 2000 to be able to draw any firm conclusions from the data. The plans should be passed on their merit and not because a small number of people don't like change. Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops. Portland Frankie

12:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Islandjim says...

Portland Frankie wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
It seems to me that, unless your objections were raised via the 'official' consultation process, they would have been largely ignored.

If you visit the planning website as suggested in the Echo's report and open the document below you will see that there is very little to suggest that there are still real concerns in the community about the suitability of the location and the feasibility of upgrading and maintaining the building and facilities to the planned standard within budget.

http___planning.weym


outh.gov.uk_WAM_doc_


Planning.pdf_extensi


on=.pdf

In Section 6 (CONSULTATION FEEDBACK) you will find the following table of results:

General attitude towards proposals:
19% (32) Broadly in favour
22% (37) Supportive with reservations
16% (27) Neutral/general enquiries
43% (74) Broadly against

The views of only 170 people are represented here of which 43% are against the proposals. If you ignore the Neutral/general enquiries segment the percentage against the proposals would rise to almost 52% whereas the percentage in favour of the proposals would rise to only just over 22%.

In my view this does not represent strong enough support for the plans to enable them to be passed by the planning authority.
Oh dear Bob.... if you exclude those that are neutral you end up with 52% against and 48% in favour or supportive with reservations. Statistically this is not significant. If you insist that those that are supportive but with reservations cannot be included, it then gives a 70/30 split against the academy (out of 106 people). However, that is poor maths being used to bias an answer in your favour. Add to that the fact that only 170 people bothered to comment, this is too small a number of respondants on an island of 12,000 souls and a school populatioon of around 2000 to be able to draw any firm conclusions from the data. The plans should be passed on their merit and not because a small number of people don't like change. Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops.
But Portland Frankie, The fact that letters of objection came from people who live on the site and people who had real concerns about the development, and where backed up by wddc/w&pbc planning/conservatio
n & highways officers and Portland town council and natural england, I would say this far outweighs the "letters of support" (mostly consisting of a generic one liner "I support this application" with different names on the bottom, including 4 from the same household! Mother, Father and two children). But read into the figures what you will. Its an amount of objections to legally have to go to planning committee, and most people on that committee currently do not support the application. A point of note, in the last application Dark grey render on the sportshall was justified as neccesary from budget reason, so where is all the extra money for the newly proposed highways alterations comming from (some of which are within the Weston conservation area and actually require a separate application).
[quote][p][bold]Portland Frankie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: It seems to me that, unless your objections were raised via the 'official' consultation process, they would have been largely ignored. If you visit the planning website as suggested in the Echo's report and open the document below you will see that there is very little to suggest that there are still real concerns in the community about the suitability of the location and the feasibility of upgrading and maintaining the building and facilities to the planned standard within budget. http___planning.weym outh.gov.uk_WAM_doc_ Planning.pdf_extensi on=.pdf In Section 6 (CONSULTATION FEEDBACK) you will find the following table of results: General attitude towards proposals: 19% (32) Broadly in favour 22% (37) Supportive with reservations 16% (27) Neutral/general enquiries 43% (74) Broadly against The views of only 170 people are represented here of which 43% are against the proposals. If you ignore the Neutral/general enquiries segment the percentage against the proposals would rise to almost 52% whereas the percentage in favour of the proposals would rise to only just over 22%. In my view this does not represent strong enough support for the plans to enable them to be passed by the planning authority.[/p][/quote]Oh dear Bob.... if you exclude those that are neutral you end up with 52% against and 48% in favour or supportive with reservations. Statistically this is not significant. If you insist that those that are supportive but with reservations cannot be included, it then gives a 70/30 split against the academy (out of 106 people). However, that is poor maths being used to bias an answer in your favour. Add to that the fact that only 170 people bothered to comment, this is too small a number of respondants on an island of 12,000 souls and a school populatioon of around 2000 to be able to draw any firm conclusions from the data. The plans should be passed on their merit and not because a small number of people don't like change. Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops.[/p][/quote]But Portland Frankie, The fact that letters of objection came from people who live on the site and people who had real concerns about the development, and where backed up by wddc/w&pbc planning/conservatio n & highways officers and Portland town council and natural england, I would say this far outweighs the "letters of support" (mostly consisting of a generic one liner "I support this application" with different names on the bottom, including 4 from the same household! Mother, Father and two children). But read into the figures what you will. Its an amount of objections to legally have to go to planning committee, and most people on that committee currently do not support the application. A point of note, in the last application Dark grey render on the sportshall was justified as neccesary from budget reason, so where is all the extra money for the newly proposed highways alterations comming from (some of which are within the Weston conservation area and actually require a separate application). Islandjim

1:46pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Bob Goulding says...

I agree there are many ways you could interpret the stats. The problem is that there are two (at least) quite separate issues which are not very well highlighted in the numbers published.

Had we been asked to express our views about the merits of setting up the academy irrespective of the location(s) I would have expected a size-able majority in favour (perhaps some with reservations). However, had we then been asked to vote on the location, I’m sure that the vast majority would have rejected Southwell Park for the many reasons already highlighted over the last 12 months or so.

If you read the examples of the Consultation Feedback you will see what I mean. There are too many to include all of them but here the examples of ‘Supportive with reservations’ and ‘neutral/general enquiries’:

6.8 Examples of comments assessed as being ‘supportive with reservations’:
“Although I am in agreement with the majority of the plans, I do feel the
school year of 4 is still young for the older section of the building.”
“Drawings look good - impressive site. However the location is too far for my
child to walk to school so he will have to travel on a bus which is chargeable.”
“Whilst the plans certainly appear impressive overriding points made to me
are: a) Southwell is in the "wrong" location. B) Concerns that no guarantee is
given that the existing sites will not be sold for housing. C) That "too many"
children could be environmentally bad for the site”
“I think the plans look very good and impressive. My only concern, is transport
to the Southwell site, and the cost of it, with two children.”

6.9 Examples of comments assessed as being ‘neutral/general enquiries’:
“Any travel plan must be annually monitored and publicly reported to provide
confidence and engagement with the local community.”
“Please advise on % of total energy that would be achieved through
renewable?”
“Will there be a specific playtime area for football, skipping etc?”
“I hope the potential for improvement is not eclipsed by the divisive nature of
the ‘home base’ idea.”
I agree there are many ways you could interpret the stats. The problem is that there are two (at least) quite separate issues which are not very well highlighted in the numbers published. Had we been asked to express our views about the merits of setting up the academy irrespective of the location(s) I would have expected a size-able majority in favour (perhaps some with reservations). However, had we then been asked to vote on the location, I’m sure that the vast majority would have rejected Southwell Park for the many reasons already highlighted over the last 12 months or so. If you read the examples of the Consultation Feedback you will see what I mean. There are too many to include all of them but here the examples of ‘Supportive with reservations’ and ‘neutral/general enquiries’: 6.8 Examples of comments assessed as being ‘supportive with reservations’: “Although I am in agreement with the majority of the plans, I do feel the school year of 4 is still young for the older section of the building.” “Drawings look good - impressive site. However the location is too far for my child to walk to school so he will have to travel on a bus which is chargeable.” “Whilst the plans certainly appear impressive overriding points made to me are: a) Southwell is in the "wrong" location. B) Concerns that no guarantee is given that the existing sites will not be sold for housing. C) That "too many" children could be environmentally bad for the site” “I think the plans look very good and impressive. My only concern, is transport to the Southwell site, and the cost of it, with two children.” 6.9 Examples of comments assessed as being ‘neutral/general enquiries’: “Any travel plan must be annually monitored and publicly reported to provide confidence and engagement with the local community.” “Please advise on % of total energy that would be achieved through renewable?” “Will there be a specific playtime area for football, skipping etc?” “I hope the potential for improvement is not eclipsed by the divisive nature of the ‘home base’ idea.” Bob Goulding

4:22pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Bob Goulding says...

Portland Frankie wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
It seems to me that, unless your objections were raised via the 'official' consultation process, they would have been largely ignored.

If you visit the planning website as suggested in the Echo's report and open the document below you will see that there is very little to suggest that there are still real concerns in the community about the suitability of the location and the feasibility of upgrading and maintaining the building and facilities to the planned standard within budget.

http___planning.weym


outh.gov.uk_WAM_doc_


Planning.pdf_extensi


on=.pdf

In Section 6 (CONSULTATION FEEDBACK) you will find the following table of results:

General attitude towards proposals:
19% (32) Broadly in favour
22% (37) Supportive with reservations
16% (27) Neutral/general enquiries
43% (74) Broadly against

The views of only 170 people are represented here of which 43% are against the proposals. If you ignore the Neutral/general enquiries segment the percentage against the proposals would rise to almost 52% whereas the percentage in favour of the proposals would rise to only just over 22%.

In my view this does not represent strong enough support for the plans to enable them to be passed by the planning authority.
Oh dear Bob.... if you exclude those that are neutral you end up with 52% against and 48% in favour or supportive with reservations. Statistically this is not significant. If you insist that those that are supportive but with reservations cannot be included, it then gives a 70/30 split against the academy (out of 106 people). However, that is poor maths being used to bias an answer in your favour. Add to that the fact that only 170 people bothered to comment, this is too small a number of respondants on an island of 12,000 souls and a school populatioon of around 2000 to be able to draw any firm conclusions from the data. The plans should be passed on their merit and not because a small number of people don't like change. Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops.
If you read my later post you will see why I presented the numbers in the way that I did.

Yes, 170 is not a representative sample and the responses and categorisation are far to vague and misleading, but the fact is that this analysis was undertaken by independent professionals and is included in support of the planning application.

Perhaps those in favour should have shouted from the rooftops but I suspect that that would also have fallen on deaf ears.
[quote][p][bold]Portland Frankie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: It seems to me that, unless your objections were raised via the 'official' consultation process, they would have been largely ignored. If you visit the planning website as suggested in the Echo's report and open the document below you will see that there is very little to suggest that there are still real concerns in the community about the suitability of the location and the feasibility of upgrading and maintaining the building and facilities to the planned standard within budget. http___planning.weym outh.gov.uk_WAM_doc_ Planning.pdf_extensi on=.pdf In Section 6 (CONSULTATION FEEDBACK) you will find the following table of results: General attitude towards proposals: 19% (32) Broadly in favour 22% (37) Supportive with reservations 16% (27) Neutral/general enquiries 43% (74) Broadly against The views of only 170 people are represented here of which 43% are against the proposals. If you ignore the Neutral/general enquiries segment the percentage against the proposals would rise to almost 52% whereas the percentage in favour of the proposals would rise to only just over 22%. In my view this does not represent strong enough support for the plans to enable them to be passed by the planning authority.[/p][/quote]Oh dear Bob.... if you exclude those that are neutral you end up with 52% against and 48% in favour or supportive with reservations. Statistically this is not significant. If you insist that those that are supportive but with reservations cannot be included, it then gives a 70/30 split against the academy (out of 106 people). However, that is poor maths being used to bias an answer in your favour. Add to that the fact that only 170 people bothered to comment, this is too small a number of respondants on an island of 12,000 souls and a school populatioon of around 2000 to be able to draw any firm conclusions from the data. The plans should be passed on their merit and not because a small number of people don't like change. Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops.[/p][/quote]If you read my later post you will see why I presented the numbers in the way that I did. Yes, 170 is not a representative sample and the responses and categorisation are far to vague and misleading, but the fact is that this analysis was undertaken by independent professionals and is included in support of the planning application. Perhaps those in favour should have shouted from the rooftops but I suspect that that would also have fallen on deaf ears. Bob Goulding

4:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Portland Frankie says...

echo-reader wrote:
WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL

WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT,

BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL
WE DO WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT AT SOUTHWELL WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE.THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE AND EVEN WESTON FIELD IS IMPRACTICAL AND WAS STOPPED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHO PULLED THE FUNDING.
[quote][p][bold]echo-reader[/bold] wrote: WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL[/p][/quote]WE DO WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT AT SOUTHWELL WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE.THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE AND EVEN WESTON FIELD IS IMPRACTICAL AND WAS STOPPED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHO PULLED THE FUNDING. Portland Frankie

5:08pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Bob Goulding says...

Portland Frankie wrote:
echo-reader wrote:
WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL

WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT,

BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL
WE DO WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT AT SOUTHWELL WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE.THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE AND EVEN WESTON FIELD IS IMPRACTICAL AND WAS STOPPED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHO PULLED THE FUNDING.
In an earlier post you said that "Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops".

How many is many? That is the crux of the argument and is something that the research and consultation process should have established. The fact is that it didn't and the planning decision is, therefore, going to be based on flawed data.
[quote][p][bold]Portland Frankie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echo-reader[/bold] wrote: WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL[/p][/quote]WE DO WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT AT SOUTHWELL WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE.THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE AND EVEN WESTON FIELD IS IMPRACTICAL AND WAS STOPPED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHO PULLED THE FUNDING.[/p][/quote]In an earlier post you said that "Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops". How many is many? That is the crux of the argument and is something that the research and consultation process should have established. The fact is that it didn't and the planning decision is, therefore, going to be based on flawed data. Bob Goulding

5:23pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Portland Frankie says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Portland Frankie wrote:
echo-reader wrote:
WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL

WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT,

BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL
WE DO WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT AT SOUTHWELL WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE.THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE AND EVEN WESTON FIELD IS IMPRACTICAL AND WAS STOPPED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHO PULLED THE FUNDING.
In an earlier post you said that "Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops".

How many is many? That is the crux of the argument and is something that the research and consultation process should have established. The fact is that it didn't and the planning decision is, therefore, going to be based on flawed data.
Your point? How many are against it? Neither of us have the data one way or the other.We can both shout as loud as we each want but neither will win. The planning decision is based on many factors; letters of objections form only a small part of that decision. If you have a look at, for example, the number of objections against the stables at Southwell, it should have been stopped by your logic. It wasn't.....
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portland Frankie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echo-reader[/bold] wrote: WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL[/p][/quote]WE DO WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT AT SOUTHWELL WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE.THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE AND EVEN WESTON FIELD IS IMPRACTICAL AND WAS STOPPED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHO PULLED THE FUNDING.[/p][/quote]In an earlier post you said that "Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops". How many is many? That is the crux of the argument and is something that the research and consultation process should have established. The fact is that it didn't and the planning decision is, therefore, going to be based on flawed data.[/p][/quote]Your point? How many are against it? Neither of us have the data one way or the other.We can both shout as loud as we each want but neither will win. The planning decision is based on many factors; letters of objections form only a small part of that decision. If you have a look at, for example, the number of objections against the stables at Southwell, it should have been stopped by your logic. It wasn't..... Portland Frankie

6:44pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Westwindblower says...

People need to be aware that if you objected (or supported) the last application that your comments are not transfered to the resubmission as far as I am aware. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong about this. Make sure you comment on the resubmission to get your voice heard!!!!!!!!
People need to be aware that if you objected (or supported) the last application that your comments are not transfered to the resubmission as far as I am aware. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong about this. Make sure you comment on the resubmission to get your voice heard!!!!!!!! Westwindblower

6:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Bob Goulding says...

Portland Frankie wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Portland Frankie wrote:
echo-reader wrote:
WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL

WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT,

BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL
WE DO WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT AT SOUTHWELL WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE.THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE AND EVEN WESTON FIELD IS IMPRACTICAL AND WAS STOPPED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHO PULLED THE FUNDING.
In an earlier post you said that "Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops".

How many is many? That is the crux of the argument and is something that the research and consultation process should have established. The fact is that it didn't and the planning decision is, therefore, going to be based on flawed data.
Your point? How many are against it? Neither of us have the data one way or the other.We can both shout as loud as we each want but neither will win. The planning decision is based on many factors; letters of objections form only a small part of that decision. If you have a look at, for example, the number of objections against the stables at Southwell, it should have been stopped by your logic. It wasn't.....
Please understand that I really understand your position and respect your opinion. The problem is that the 'package' that has been submitted to the planning committee does not, in my opinion, represent the true wishes of the community as a whole.
[quote][p][bold]Portland Frankie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portland Frankie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echo-reader[/bold] wrote: WE DONT WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT SOMEWHERE , WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE OR EVEN WESTON FIELDS WHICH IS USED BY THE SCHOOL[/p][/quote]WE DO WANT IT AT SOUTHWELL WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING IT, BUILD IT AT SOUTHWELL WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL AND NOT DANGEROUS NEAR A CLIFF EDGE.THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GROVE AND EVEN WESTON FIELD IS IMPRACTICAL AND WAS STOPPED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHO PULLED THE FUNDING.[/p][/quote]In an earlier post you said that "Many people are in favour, we just don't need to shout it from the rooftops". How many is many? That is the crux of the argument and is something that the research and consultation process should have established. The fact is that it didn't and the planning decision is, therefore, going to be based on flawed data.[/p][/quote]Your point? How many are against it? Neither of us have the data one way or the other.We can both shout as loud as we each want but neither will win. The planning decision is based on many factors; letters of objections form only a small part of that decision. If you have a look at, for example, the number of objections against the stables at Southwell, it should have been stopped by your logic. It wasn't.....[/p][/quote]Please understand that I really understand your position and respect your opinion. The problem is that the 'package' that has been submitted to the planning committee does not, in my opinion, represent the true wishes of the community as a whole. Bob Goulding

6:57pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Westwindblower says...

I cannot believe it would cost as much to refurbish and extend the current Royal Manor. It seems to be a much larger building than what is proposed with much more potential to be a great environment in its own grounds like every other school. Southwell is just not a suitable site as it is considerably windier and off the beaten track.
I cannot believe it would cost as much to refurbish and extend the current Royal Manor. It seems to be a much larger building than what is proposed with much more potential to be a great environment in its own grounds like every other school. Southwell is just not a suitable site as it is considerably windier and off the beaten track. Westwindblower

1:58pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Trackerman says...

You poor Portlanders
Put it in Tesco's cos you didn't want that either.
You poor Portlanders Put it in Tesco's cos you didn't want that either. Trackerman

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree