Signatures 288 total
-
1
Name: Lynne Rickwood on Nov 29, 2012Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Grace Wilmshurst on Nov 29, 2012Comments: The planned expansion will compromise our children's education and safety.Flag
-
3
Name: Matthew Wilmshurst on Nov 29, 2012Comments: The planned expansion of the current stanford schools will jeopardise education standards and safety for generations to come. The idea is badly thought through and simply a money saving excercise that will place the school and staff under even greater pressure. Brighton needs new schools not overcrowded existing ones!Flag
-
4
Name: Andrew Staib on Nov 29, 2012Comments: The community has not been properly informed of the plans AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE! How many classrooms, will the hall be made bigger, will children have less play space and time to eat their lunch, how long will the building works take. I do not believe all the stones have been turned to find an alternative to burdening the little school that s Stanford InfantsFlag
-
5
Name: Andrew Whiston on Nov 29, 2012Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Nicky Sanderson on Nov 30, 2012Comments: there really is not enough room for more children. our children will be compromised!Flag
-
7
Name: Rachel Lee on Nov 30, 2012Comments: I DO NOT believe the expansion should happen and DO NOT believe it is the right solution to the problem. We need a new school, not overcrowd and compromise Stanford Infant School. Stanford Infant School is not suitable for expansion, as it is a compact site already, with every square meter used to the full. Having a total of 90 additional children at the school by 2015, will comprise the very essence that makes the school a fantastic place to be for children (the sense of knowing who EVERYONE is, sharing assemblies and social events with parents and staff TOGETHER). I don't believe the school hall, the hub of the school, is large enough to accommodate an additional 90 children at lunchtimes/assemblies/school performances/film nights etc...It would mean more staggering and therefore less activities as a school together. Also I am not happy about children going to a school while inevitable building work happens, from a safety and health point of view, who would? Really? It's a very sad day when it comes to proposals like this, surely the education and welfare of our children should be THE MOST IMPORTANT areas to consider. Yes, I support every child has the right to a school place, ideally within walking distance of their home, but this expansion IS NOT the answer.Flag
-
8
Name: Dan Hydes on Nov 30, 2012Comments:Flag
-
9
Name: Paul Chronnell on Nov 30, 2012Comments:Flag
-
10
Name: Sophie Saunders on Nov 30, 2012Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Claire Noake on Nov 30, 2012Comments: I have to agree with the above.Flag
-
12
Name: Sophie Lewis on Nov 30, 2012Comments: The consultation did not include the local community other than the infant school. Local residents' association, nurseries and crucially, the junior school need to be fully consulted and invited to a consultation meeting to afford them the opportunity to discuss the issues with council members and officers.Flag
-
13
Name: David Gray on Nov 30, 2012Comments: Neither Stanford Infants nor Stanford Juniors have the space to expand without resulting in a serious decline in the quality of educational provision at both schools. Brighton & Hove Council should just bite the bullet and build an entirely new school in the area, perhaps by converting an existing building. This problem of shortage of places in our local schools is not going to go away for the foreseeable future. David Gray Parent of child at Stanford Juniors.Flag
-
14
Name: Andrea Wadsworth on Nov 30, 2012Comments: The grounds are not big enough to hold another 120 children and the surrounding streets, on which I live, will not be able to cope with further traffic. This is a lovely residential area that could be ruined by this proposed expansion. As a parent of a child that will start at Stanford (hopefully due to sibling link) I do not like the idea of her facing her first years at school, which can be unsettling at the best of times, in a portacabin with building work all around. Surely it is time that the council realised that they need to build a new school rather than continually expanding our existing well functioning schools.Flag
-
15
Name: Gavan Curley on Nov 30, 2012Comments:Flag
-
16
Name: Anna on Nov 30, 2012Comments: the consultation should be open and honest. we want the answers to our question!Flag
-
17
Name: Gus Sylvester on Nov 30, 2012Comments: 1. The council has known about the looming school place crisis for 12 years. And yet, here we are. Rather than a coherent, creative strategy spanning a decade – we’ve got sticking plaster solutions. 2. Let’s be clear; this is not an ‘expansion’ – it’s a contraction, cramming more kids onto the same site. There’s no more land in the equation. 3. The council has a statutory duty to ensure that people have sufficient information to form a considered view. They’ve failed. So far, this ‘consultation’ is a box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine attempt to inform and listen to the community. The council have failed to inform all interested parties and then provided next to no detail on the ‘plans’ to parents, the schools or local residents. 4. Unless it is viable to expand Stanford Junior school (and it isn’t), expanding Stanford Infants is folly. It’s simply creating a bottleneck for the future. Ensuring that children can’t transfer to junior school together and are split amongst schools further afield – as evidenced across the city. 5. Like everyone concerned, I completely sympathise with anyone pushing for expansion who is desperate to see their child attend their nearest school. Stanford is slap-bang in the centre of a neighbourhood packed with young families – it means that the catchment area doesn’t extend very far. We have to be sure that there will be a school worth going to for all children – that means the ones there and any additional children who join. 6. Of course, we should all work together to find solutions. But this expansion without explanation approach is divisive and rips apart communities rather than creating cohesion; pitting parent against parent and placing our excellent heads and governors in an untenable position. 7. Naturally, there are genuine concerns about class disruption, health and safety, traffic congestion, pollution, the reduction of communal hall space and outdoor play space and the impact on children and teachers. But we know that the council has given short shrift to these concerns expressed by the numerous other schools that have tried to resist turning the city’s schools into building sites. 8. I understand that faith schools can refuse expansion point-blank, whilst taking funding; an odd arrangement. With a city in crisis, the council needs to tackle local faith schools with plentiful land and urge them to consider their local community, not just their faith community. We are extremely fortunate to have outstanding schools on our doorstep. I believe everyone should have access to similar schools. So, let’s build some. Like many, I am ideologically opposed to free schools and academies. But ideology is one thing – children and families must come first. Ensure any future builds are set up with not-for-profit organisations as partners and run as inclusive models with maximum parental involvement. And start building. Still believe in crow-barring kids into small sites? Then at least fulfill your statutory and moral duty and give those directly affected detailed information about how you’re going to achieve this and how you will mitigate the adverse impact.Flag
-
18
Name: Marein Schmitthenner on Nov 30, 2012Comments:Flag
-
19
Name: Katie Ward on Nov 30, 2012Comments:Flag
-
20
Name: Angela Jones on Nov 30, 2012Comments: The children have limited outdoor space at the infant school, therefore building another 3 classrooms for an extra 90 pupils will have a huge impact on their quality of play-time. This proposed increase in pupils will also incur additional issues when the children move from infants to juniors. Class sizes are already over 30 at the juniors and to increase the size anymore will have a detrimental impact on the children's day to day learning.Flag
-
21
Name: Lucy Williams on Nov 30, 2012Comments: the space is already too small for the number of children attendingFlag
-
22
Name: Claire Donaldson on Nov 30, 2012Comments: I wholeheartedly disagree with the councils plans to expand Stanford Infant School. The lack of infant school spaces in Brighton was predicted by demographers at the council over 10 years ago and instead of the council planning for the issue in time we are now facing a crisis. It seems the councils response to the crisis is to systematically work its way through Brightons city schools cramming in more and more children into sites that are already running at full capacity. Furthermore their policy is to rush through proposals without properly informing parents, the school and local residents of their plans. We've been left in the dark with little to no information as to what exactly the plans for expansion are. We're told a temporary building will be used from Sept 2013 to accomodate 30 new children into the school whilst building work commences. Parents and the community have genuine concerns about the impact this will have on our children, the staff at the school and the local residents. A building site is no place for a child and certainly no environment to learn in . Class disruption, health and safety isuues, traffic congestion, pollution, the reduction of communal hall and outdoor space, are all genuine concerns that the council has failed to address in their proposal. I do believe that people have the right to attend their local school and I am sympathetic to those struggling to find a place but continuing with this policy will not ensure any parent a quality learning environment for their child. We need to force the council to find other solutions. To build a new school or convert an unused site. We need a solution that safeguards the education and well being of all Brighton and Hove's children.Flag
-
23
Name: P Wilmshurst on Nov 30, 2012Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Jake Smith on Nov 30, 2012Comments: This proposal requires a thorough consultation involving the whole community. Rushing through a quick fix will not benefit the current and future school children, nor local residents.Flag
-
25
Name: Clare Jordan on Dec 1, 2012Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Kate Conto on Dec 1, 2012Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: Alex Campbell on Dec 1, 2012Comments:Flag
-
28
Name: Megan Howe on Dec 1, 2012Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Anneli Sandström on Dec 1, 2012Comments: It is about time to find more durable solution for the increase of children in the central of Brighton.Flag
-
30
Name: Nick Bates on Dec 1, 2012Comments: It is about time to find more durable solution for the increase of children in the central of Brighton.Flag
-
31
Name: Marina Mologni on Dec 1, 2012Comments: I object to the expansion. The space is inadequate especially the playground to accommodate extra 90 children. I am concern about the high impact of construction on children. This will also bring more traffic to the area. Stanford is a lovely school but it is at full capacity, the expansion risks to jeopardise the school reputation. And, most important the quality of experience and education of our children.Flag
-
32
Name: Graham Evans on Dec 2, 2012Comments: Whilst I recognise that Stanford Infants is a very popular school and the number of eligible children in the area may be increasing, I do not feel that the information contained within this four page consultation document goes anywhere near providing the level of detail required to make an informed decision about taking plans further. I ask for a halt to proceedings until this level of detail is made clear to all affected, and all potentially affected, by these plans.Flag
-
33
Name: Robert Beasley on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
34
Name: A Smith on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Siobhan Marshall on Dec 2, 2012Comments: As a resident of Port Hall Place, these proposals will have a significant impact on the traffic around my house. The additional traffic during term time will make this area much more hazardous than it already isFlag
-
36
Name: Olivia Hum on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Andrew Day on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Phil Buckingham on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
39
Name: Zubeida Dasgupta on Dec 2, 2012Comments: The playground, school hall and entrance ways are already too crowded, with accidents happening when small children run and bump into each other. There just isn't space for up to 90 more children in total, even if you build upwards - we can only just squeeze in for whole school assemblies/ nativities/ concerts. Whilst additional spaces for infant children are desperately needed, the council should find an alternative site or purchase additional land so that children have enough space.Flag
-
40
Name: Alex Muggleton on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: DAVID AND JEAN CLARK on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
42
Name: STUART CLARK on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Martin Wood on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
44
Name: Anonymous on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
45
Name: Sarah Clark on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
46
Name: Anonymous on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Alex Muggleton on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
48
Name: Anonymous on Dec 2, 2012Comments: The space is too small to allow more children in.Flag
-
49
Name: Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta on Dec 2, 2012Comments: Grandfather of two pupilsFlag
-
50
Name: Jill Muggleton on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag