Signatures 288 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 › »
-
51
Name: Simon Muggleton on Dec 2, 2012Comments:Flag
-
52
Name: Emily Abt on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
53
Name: James Rennie on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
54
Name: Carla Rennie on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
55
Name: Mark Williams on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
56
Name: Laura Hearnshaw on Dec 3, 2012Comments: Neither site has the space for expansion. Both schools are already small with very limited outdoor space and terrifically busy at pick up/drop off and playtimes.Flag
-
57
Name: Anne-Meike Fechter on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
58
Name: Jamie Mayers on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
59
Name: Luisa Rennie on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
60
Name: Anonymous on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
61
Name: Muna Amor on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
62
Name: Jo Simon on Dec 3, 2012Comments: I acknowledge the urgent need to provide additional school places and that the first option has to be to look at existing schools. However, the space constraints are very real, there is limited outside space already and the impact of both building and then expanding the school is, in my view, too distruptive to accommodateFlag
-
63
Name: Alastair Rennie on Dec 3, 2012Comments: conduct a proper consultationFlag
-
64
Name: Laura Stanley on Dec 3, 2012Comments: I object to the council's proposed plans to expand Stanford Infant/Junior schools on the grounds listed.Flag
-
65
Name: Frank Lewis on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
66
Name: Claire Turner on Dec 3, 2012Comments: I am against the expansion of stanford infants and juniors because both schools do not have the outside space to cater for the extra childrenFlag
-
67
Name: Rebecca Collings on Dec 3, 2012Comments: I understand the pressure the council is under to provide additional school places to Brighton and Hove children. However surely expanding the stretched space at Stanford Infants and Juniors is not the solution. The land and playground space at Stanford infants and juniors is very limited as it is, to add more children to this would surely be dangerous. The roads are small and already congested at drop off and pick up times, to increase traffic flow would be disastrous. I am very much against these very rushed expanion plans. My son started reception this year and I greatly feel the success and charm of this school is down to it's size, the children feel secure and cared for in such a familiar environment, to water this down would detract from this.Flag
-
68
Name: Tony Chopin on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
69
Name: Anonymous on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
70
Name: Anonymous on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
71
Name: Jane Rennie on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
72
Name: Tina Goddard on Dec 3, 2012Comments: Enough of this council's remedy of a sticking plaster approach to our city's children's education and wellbeing, remember the 2004 Children's Act, EVERY CHILD MATTERS.... Every child has a right to thrive, and this will be compromised ...Flag
-
73
Name: Alison Olmi on Dec 3, 2012Comments: Too many children to accommodate with no provision for extra space. This needs more careful planningFlag
-
74
Name: Catherine Rennie-Nash on Dec 3, 2012Comments: It is clearly an inadequate site for expansion on so many levels and besides this, a proper consultation process is essential because we live a democractic society!Flag
-
75
Name: Jermayne French on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
76
Name: Jennifer Green on Dec 3, 2012Comments: I strongly oppose the expansion of Stanford. I am a Primary teacher and my main concerns are PSHE issues. It is important for the well being of a child that they feel valued and safe and part of community. If a child feels happy and valued they will be successful in all areas of their learning and development. A reception child would feel lost being 1 of 120. It would be very hard for the staff on playground duties to build meaningful relationships with individuals. There is plenty of research in support of small schools.Stanford is already a large school and I feel it would be very damaging to extend . Children already feel the playground is very busy and loose friends. The childrens physical activities would also be at risk. In these times when child obesity is on the increase reducing the spaces where children have access to physical time seems absurd.Flag
-
77
Name: Al Green on Dec 3, 2012Comments:Flag
-
78
Name: Jessica Gould on Dec 4, 2012Comments: I agree with the above and feel that there are other schools in Brighton who have more flexibility in providing the additional school places. St Pauls Infant & Primiary School is currently a one form entry, it has significant outside space and copious building opportunities to turn it into a 2 or 3 form infant/primary school. I feel the council are taking the easiest possible route without challenging the church schools to provide for the community they live in.Flag
-
79
Name: Christina on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
80
Name: Iain Martin on Dec 4, 2012Comments: It's my opinion that the process has not been given adequate consultationFlag
-
81
Name: Elaine Izzard on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
82
Name: Alison Francis on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
83
Name: Alison Harker on Dec 4, 2012Comments: This is not a fair consultation process. We as local residents have not yet been informed of the planned proposals! It would seem once again that the council have already made a decision and are now half heartedly letting the residents know of proposal. Not good enough. We do not want the extra traffic in and around our area... it is already a congested area! This inevitably will lead to more accidents. Why should we be rushed into this decision by the council, this has been a problem for at least 5 years.We should not suffer due to the councils poor planning! 10 months notice is an unfair amount of time. A playground deemed unsafe to play in! With limited space available as it is, there will be even more limited space on the playground whilst builders are on site. This would mean playground out of action due to health and safety regulations! Does this mean children can only use the hall for playtimes, during building works? The knock on effect would be huge... Behaviour would almost certainly go through the downward spiral due to children not being able to let off steam and have a break at playtimes. Children need space and a chance to run around... it is part of a childs right to be allowed to run and play freely at breaktime. There will be more collisions and injuries due to smaller playground plus increased nnumbers of children! Health and safety issues here! If behaviour problems increase statistically this means standards of learning decrease! Where will a portacabin fit exactly? Health and Safety surely will not allow a portacabin on the playground! No room at all! The playground is already too small for the number of children that attend the school already! Whilst building works are carried out the level of disruption would also interupt children's learning..progress will begin to slip as inevitably noise from building work would inpinge learning. If livestock were to be using this size area as grazing... it would be deemed cruel and unable to go ahead! If building works go ahead and a larger intake goes ahead,this would mean staggered playtimes, assemblies lunchtimes... this too will effect the progress of childrens learning at Stanford Infants as children will be disrupted during lessons through this extra unnecessary noise. Less hall time will also be available which means subjects for hall useage will be affected by being limited or lost altogether! Extra building work at the Junior site is just as absurd... there is no room on the playground. Balfour School has a huge playing field to accomodate children. Stanford children already have to walk to BHASVIC field. This is not equal opportunities for Stanford Children. Building works will disrupt education. Extra intake on an already small site will disrupt education. How can we trust the council when these serious and valid issues on preciuos playground space have not been addressed!Flag
-
84
Name: Matthew Harker on Dec 4, 2012Comments: This is not a fair consultation process. We as local residents have not yet been informed of the planned proposals! It would seem once again that the council have already made a decision and are now half heartedly letting the residents know of proposal. Not good enough. We do not want the extra traffic in and around our area... it is already a congested area! This inevitably will lead to more accidents. Why should we be rushed into this decision by the council, this has been a problem for at least 5 years.We should not suffer due to the councils poor planning! 10 months notice is an unfair amount of time. A playground deemed unsafe to play in! With limited space available as it is, there will be even more limited space on the playground whilst builders are on site. This would mean playground out of action due to health and safety regulations! Does this mean children can only use the hall for playtimes, during building works? The knock on effect would be huge... Behaviour would almost certainly go through the downward spiral due to children not being able to let off steam and have a break at playtimes. Children need space and a chance to run around... it is part of a childs right to be allowed to run and play freely at breaktime. There will be more collisions and injuries due to smaller playground plus increased nnumbers of children! Health and safety issues here! If behaviour problems increase statistically this means standards of learning decrease! Where will a portacabin fit exactly? Health and Safety surely will not allow a portacabin on the playground! No room at all! The playground is already too small for the number of children that attend the school already! Whilst building works are carried out the level of disruption would also interupt children's learning..progress will begin to slip as inevitably noise from building work would inpinge learning. If livestock were to be using this size area as grazing... it would be deemed cruel and unable to go ahead! If building works go ahead and a larger intake goes ahead,this would mean staggered playtimes, assemblies lunchtimes... this too will effect the progress of childrens learning at Stanford Infants as children will be disrupted during lessons through this extra unnecessary noise. Less hall time will also be available which means subjects for hall useage will be affected by being limited or lost altogether! Extra building work at the Junior site is just as absurd... there is no room on the playground. Balfour School has a huge playing field to accomodate children. Stanford children already have to walk to BHASVIC field. This is not equal opportunities for Stanford Children. Building works will disrupt education. Extra intake on an already small site will disrupt education. How can we trust the council when these serious and valid issues on preciuos playground space have not been addressed!Flag
-
85
Name:
Erinna Mettler on Dec 4, 2012
Comments:Flag -
86
Name: Joanna Reames on Dec 4, 2012Comments: I object to the expansion because of all the above reasons and feel that even if it was postponed it would give people time to consider the best result for the school and maybe ask some of the other schools that were initially asked before the legislation changed and meant that Stanford had no choice.There just is not the room to expand this school.Flag
-
87
Name: Ali Kingham on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
88
Name: Vivienne Ridley on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
89
Name: Rachel Eatock on Dec 4, 2012Comments: It is impossible to consult on an expansion when you do not know what the expansion looks like, or indeed any of the proposals for how the expansion will happen. It is also impossible to consult on the infants expansion without knowing whether the council have taken into consideration the impact on the Juniors, and if they have then what are they considering? It is not unrealistic to ask to see the councils proposals, indeed it is the councils lack of willingness to show the parents anything that is creating a huge amount of opposition, as parents can only assume the worst.Flag
-
90
Name: Lesley Mccune on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
91
Name: Heidi Crawford on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
92
Name: Sophie Lawrence on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
93
Name: Anonymous on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
94
Name: Anonymous on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
95
Name: Helen Cox on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
96
Name: Lucy Tucker on Dec 4, 2012Comments: with increased students and parents and siblings it would be very difficult to actually get into the school by the current entrances. it would be impossible to get all parents in to see shows etc as there is not enough roomFlag
-
97
Name: David Cox on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
98
Name: Anonymous on Dec 4, 2012Comments: Grandfather of Lilian Cox (Dolphin Class)Flag
-
99
Name: Anonymous on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag
-
100
Name: Anonymous on Dec 4, 2012Comments:Flag