Portland Academy plans for Southwell now on display (From Thisisdorset)

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

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?

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

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.

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 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!

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 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.

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).

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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