#228: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

One of the main issues with the earmarked cash is that it is only able to be used for "new" buildings, there is no government funds available to replace or improve the current site.  There are also issues with part of the land being "leased" currently and the extent to which it can be used.

All your concerns are valid for local residents and I wish you luck (whilst politely disagreeing) in tackling the injustice you feel. I shall continue to campaign for a school which looks to the future of Tunstall, Sittingbourne and the country as a whole. I firmly believe that good schools like Tunstall are much needed, and that it will provide not only the future residents of Tunstall, but leaders of the town, of the KCC, etc.

I am glad you believe the school will not close, although the evidence points to the contrary, it would be a great loss to Tunstall, Sittingbourne and all those that may one day be educated there.

#229: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

No the targeted basic need money is for increasing the school to two FE, not just for new buildings, no funds have been bid for to improve the site KCC found money in their budget fir the new school and you can bet they can find money to keep it 1FE, there is also a great deal of money in central govt fir schools that remains unallocated, wouldn't it also be great to see the diocese put their hands in their own pockets. The leased land can be purchased that was in the schools plan from the start. Also the evidence is that the school will not close as stated by roger Gough, roger truelove, lee burgess. If the area faces a shortfall then they will not reduce a school in size and exashabate the situation.