Stanford Chat

[JMW]

Planning Application ---STA/21082
Recreation Ground
Hunters Field
Stanford In The Vale
Faringdon

Proposed new pre-school playgroup building with ancillary accommodation

Do villagers know about this? Just to start the ball rolling here are a few questions for you.
Do you know that this will take away some of the play area space where many families play games?
It has taken many years to develop this area into a lovely play area and now they want to make it smaller by adding another building.
Do you know that it is proposed that Playgroup lease the land from the Parish Council for a peppercorn rent?
Why is the person putting in the plans Melinda Tilley, who is the County Councillor for Kingston Bagpuize, and does not even live in the Village?
Why have local residents, at least, not been told about this?
Where will the access be, there will be no parking space near this building? Lay-bys in Joyces Road and Huntersfield?
Why is this being pushed through without telling all the Village? Should there be a Village Meeting?

[DM]

Here are the associated PDF documents describing the plans.

Design and Access Statement
http://idocs.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Design%20and%20Access%20Statement-270318.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=270318&appid=1001&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=6

Plans Block
http://idocs.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans%20Block-270320.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=270320&appid=1001&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Plans Proposed
http://idocs.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans%20Proposed-270322.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=270322&appid=1001&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Plans Site
http://idocs.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans%20Site-270319.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=270319&appid=1001&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

To answer one of your questions: Melinda Tilley I believe is the chair of the preschool committee, so is the right person to be submitting this application.

Dan

[VICTOR]

Interesting application. Certainly there is a need for more pre-school places. Looks like quite a large area for just the playgroup, a non profit charity, how is it being funded?
Wouldn't this be a good opportunity for the PC to look at extending the Village Hall? This application is for stand alone buildings not connected to the hall, surely it would make sense to have it connected by extending the current hall and folding/removable screens to split off the interior.
_________________
Planet VM

[Melinda]

I shall try to answer all the questions posted.
I have taken over as Chairman because the previous Chairman and no one else on the Committee wanted to do it. I have taken over mainly to steer the new building through the process and not to lose £250K grant from the County Council. I agree some of the play area will go, but we are desparately trying to keep that to a minimum - there is also a possibility of another piece of land from the County Council to compensate. Local residents will all be consulted now that the application has gone in. I was due at a meeting of the Village Hall Committee but unfortunately couldn't get there because of the snow. I am meeting with the Chairman on Friday. It is planned to have the access off Huntersfield. It is not being pushed through at all, it is just that - if we want the grant, we have to get a shimmy on. If you want a village meeting, then we are happy to oblige.

If this does not answer your questions, and there is anyone out there who would like to take it on, then please contact me melinda.tilley@oxfordshire.gov.uk
ps My grandson attends the pre-school.

[Tim]

Given all of the options available this looks like the best way forward for the pre-school. My youngest daughter goes there and although the staff cope well with the existing facilities, it is clear that new premises are necessary. I am not looking forward to the added noise of building work as I live virtually next door, but I welcome the new development and look forward to seeing the new building when it is completed.

[VICTOR]

Well done Melinda let's hope it goes through. I think the space should be able to take it without any detrimental effect on the childrens play area. WE certainly need the extra places a.s.a.p.
_________________
Planet VM

[Mr T]

Good, clear response from Dan and Melinda - as someone involved in development is does irk me when people say 'this is being pushed through'.

There is a legal statutory process including 'neighbour notification' and our parish Council would have been informed and consulted too.

I dont know the planning merits or need analysis which underpins the application, but setting that aside, its a positive thing that our village is attracting investment and new facilities for youngsters, especially as the public purse is getting ever smaller and will soon snap shut.

[periwinkle]

I am against it why should we lose the park thats been there for years which is handy in the middle of the village , the park is a beautifull place , who wants to see another building there instead . What are the children of an older age supose to do? that are not old enough for the skatepark. I have spoke to many parents that are against this .I have many memories of the park from me as a child and many from my children

[DM]

Nobody is talking about the park being lost - if you look at the plans you'll see that not much of it is taken up. It's not a huge building.



Dan

[periwinkle]

I have checked out where the building will be and half the park will be gone thats without there play bit and access for parking so your shrinking it even more and your not going to let your children play ball next to a building , so it looks like they going to leave us the very small park for very small children . Tolders become children and children need room to play.

[DM]

[periwinkle]

Perhaps i am ranting on I live very near to the park, in the picture they have made the park look very big i have been and looked where the building will be and it does not leave much . There is lots i could moan about like they hope to use the lay-bys for parking because it stated most of us have garages and drive ways we dont, its hard to park down our street . Would you want it outside your house so a few more children could go to playschool that probaly dont even live in the village. And yes i show emotion i have lived in the village for 4o years and my family have lived in the village for over a 100 years . And it isnt just losing playground space i dont want a building there .

[richard]

Whilst I think the playgroup should have their own building, I really don’t like the idea of it being built over the park where my children play. I think it would completely ruin this part of the village, taking away yet more green and lumping a ghastly ‘TWO STORY’ building on are park.

Those who prefer the urban look to the rural, why not move to a town!

The image provided in the council plans does not seam to correspond with the dimensions of the park. I took a screenshot from google earth and married the two images up pixel by pixel [below], and the image provided makes the park look longer than it actually is?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a145/rleonard/googleearthmapofthepark.jpg

I may be wrong on this curious aspect but the plans provided don’t give the dimensions! I checked all the links ‘dm’ provided and neither do they.

We can be sure that this building will not be in any way innocuous, and will be a permanent blight on the stanford landscape.

Secondly, where will the parents park when dropping off and picking up their kids? Lets hope they get permissions to use the existing car park. I don’t believe they will walk ~ not all of them anyway, however we wont able to say until after the project is completed!

I cant understand why anyone would want to ruin our children’s play area, the building is not a small one and no-one would have even got permission to build a house on there.

[DM]

periwinkle wrote:

Perhaps i am ranting on I live very near to the park, in the picture they have made the park look very big

I'm pretty certain that is taken from an existing map and they haven't just done a sketch based on guesswork

I live on Hunters Field not far from the hall and there are no parking issues.

How do you know the extra places will go to children outside the village?

If you don't want the building because you don't think it will look good or if you simply don't like change (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY), then fair enough... but you're harming your case by making irrelevant or exaggerated statements.

I would think very hard before objecting to this one. There is a grant sitting there for a new playschool, and it's hard to see how this could be a bad thing for the village.

Richard wrote:

Secondly, where will the parents park when dropping off and picking up their kids?

The playground already exists and runs out of the small village hall, so this issue should already be there.

On your map alignment, bear in mind that the map will show boundaries which are going to be someone in the middle of the hedge/bushes round the perimeter of the park, not where the grass finishes.

I think there were some alignment issues with your graphic - I had a go myself and it lines up pretty well.

I've coloured the new building white for emphasis. That should give a good idea of the area that the new building will take up.



Regarding dimensions, there is a line on the right hand side of the building plans that is stated to be 6 metres so it should be possible to work out dimensions from that.

Dan

[richard]

Dm, hello

[periwinkle]

I dont know who the places will be going to, i said probaly which dose not mean i know . I only put on here how i felt i never said i was trying to win a case ?Im all for change but there is a lot in the village i would never of changed there would be less houses for a start . Parking down my street is bad if you park in someones place your in trouble all through Huntersfield there a cars parked every where The other end of Huntersfield is worse for driving through. There must be something better for money to be spent on, i would of said the village hall was ok for playgroup what will it be next a scout hut , youth centre, day nursery The hall would not be left for many things then would be wasted

[DM]

I feel like I'm defending the plans, yet I haven't actually expressed an opinion. What gets my back up is using misinformation to further a cause instead of being truthful, so my posts on this topic were mainly to put the facts out there and counter some of the claims being made. I don't think it's ever acceptable to distort the truth, no matter how respectable your cause is.

It's not an issue I feel strongly about either way. It would be a shame to lose some of the playground, likewise it would be a shame if the opportunity to build a much needed new playgroup building was lost. A solution would be to build it somewhere else but apparently all other options have been explored.

[JMW]

I support Playgroup with the idea of their own premises but do NOT agree about where it is proposed to be built. It has taken years to make the play area into such a good facility, that is used by so many families, especially on sunny days and now they want to spoil it! Where is it proposed to put an extra recreation place?
Where will cars park?
Why is a 2 story building needed?
What about Millenium Green, that would be an ideal place as it is so near the school?

[DM]

[Mr T]

I'm with Dan on this.

Im not that worried about where it goes, (and Ive had new developments built next to me) but some of the points being made sound nonsensical and then to say 'put in on the new estate park' .... errm well that sounds like NIMBY talk... as for the one post saying there has been too much built and 'Ive lived here 40 years and my family 100 years' - well blow me, the vast majority of houses and facilities in the village werent even here then, so most of our houses are eyesores sitting on former open fields ... utter irrelevance. Besides its not a competition based on length of residency

Richard - kids 'need space to let off steam - like a grassy verge' - kids let off steam in all manner of ways - i used to kick a ball against a wall or play keepy upy. There is the remaining park area, the new estate park (including childrens play area) the Millenium Green... or those grassy zones south of the river - think they're called FIELDS . Please, do me a favour dont use that one!

If people dont like the proposed building write to the Council with your views, make sensible suggestions about modifications - but I advise you that talking about moving it 'somewhere else' may undermine your case (i.e. being a NIMBY), talking-up or exagerating the impact may also undermine your case.

Playgroup buildings need to incorporate a high degree of security, and should have sufficent outdoor space including ancillary open space if possible, car parking and drop off/pick up is essential.

Stick to hard, non-emotive facts...... and seek achievable compromises.

Best wishes to all

[Yew Bewty]

I have to say I'm not really in any camp on this one. So I will sit on the fence.

I did have one thought while looking at DM's picture, why cant the building be sited on the grass area within the existing village hall complex?

[VICTOR]

My first thought was the obvious place would be in the school grounds, but I know that this is probably impractical. Millenium Green appears to be a bit of a white elephant and not suitable for this though.
I use the park frequently and rarely if ever have seen the proposed building space near the Village Hall being used, the kids are normally further over anyway. I believe it will be a good amenity for the village as a whole. Having said that, the PC maybe didn't envisage this when they let the playgroup use the small hall - give an inch take a mile perhaps? Why can't the Village Hall be enlarged towards the church path?
_________________
Planet VM

[periwinkle]

I never said i was trying to win a competition on years lived here just saying emotion grows with time i was not getting at certain houses here just that it was nice as a small rural villge .People want they kids to play near there house not half way round the village for a green space, i just happen to live next to the park , so handy for me. I feel people on this website get at people and can be quiet upsetting just for the sake of a argument. most forums are the same . i havent used this website much, most are regulars on here and most posts people try to argue the post ,even on silly topics i will no longer use this website i will leave it to them that do it to pick on others.

[Mr T]

Victor - I'm not certain on this point, but I dont think the building can be sited in the school grounds without a lengthy application to the DCSF (DFES as was) because it will result in a technical loss of school playing field land ('playing fields' include grass and non-grass areas) and it will affect their technical quota per child. Such a process (if required) can take up to a year.


Periwinkle - there's no point starting to get churlish and throwing a hissy fit. People on here generally respect a view point but disagreements are natural and healthy. As I made clear previously, if you have complaints or indeed positive solutions to overcome those complaints, make your point via the proper channel

I continue to wish you and others "Best wishes" but Im bound to say that entering a debate then effectively saying, 'you lot who disagree with me on the web site are horrid so Im not using it anymore' line, really isnt the way forward - either in a debate or in life generally.

(Sincere) Best wishes

[Melinda]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around about the Pre-school Building, so I shall have another go at trying to clarify the situation.

The Government - they who must be obeyed - has told us that we must provide a place for all rising 3 year olds. At the moment we have 19 or so children on the waiting list. Even extending the hours would not enable us to take them all. That is why they will give us a grant to build a pre-school. The Grant is ONLY for a pre-school.

The school does not have enough room on their site for the building, the village hall does, but refused us permission to build on the side or the rear. The Recreation ground is too far away, as the children have to go to the school once or twice a week in the term before they start school. The children have to walk to the school.

I think a pre-school is a definite village amenity, catering for small children, their parents and grandparents. It is a very sociable place, I can vouch for that as I take my grandson, who lives in SITV.

The plans have only just gone in and the consultation process just started. Please put your feelings in writing to the Vale of White Horse District Council Planning Department. They will take all objections into account before making a decision.

The Pre-school is a registered charity and the Committee are all volunteers, and unpaid. The teachers are excellent and our OfSTED report said so. It is a grand start for the children and one I would hate to see taken away from the village.

I will always do my best to answer questions and queries. My e-mail is melinda.tilley@oxfordshire.gov.uk
Melinda

[richard]

Dm

[Mr T]

Richard the sound of your spade digging your ever increase hole is deafening !!!

It is you who are diverging issues - we're not talking of housing on the site so why use housing in your arguement - its relevance is nought.

What you are trying to say is that any structure on the site will be detrimental and if it wasnt a childrens nursery building we would all hate it - well Im sorry, but part of the issue is weighing up different issues in the balance and making a balanced judgement - and the FACT it is a children playgroup building (rather than housing) does make it more acceptable.

Moreover, you keep infering that the whole park is being developed - well it isnt, Dan estimates about a sixth, I think between a fifth and sixth and there will still be the formal play equipment and areas of grass left for children .... or yes even surrounding fields which kids DO play in (my own included).

You then use emotive arguements about not wanting children playing outside the village SCARY SCARY oooooooooooo again the relevance to the proposal is nought. I suggested previously that there is still the Millenium Green, the new estate park, or areas of informal space that kids naturally play in .... or the childrens equipment and grass on the remaining five/sixths of the site itself.

As for keeping 'an eye on children' in the play area from your house. Do you sit at the window staring at the play area with a brass spy glass you either stay with a child in the remaining play area (to keep an eye on them) or you cant possibly be keeping an eye on them permanently, either way, that too is an irrelevant arguement as to whether or not ONE SIXTH of the park land is built on to enable a young childrens' facility

As I said before and reiterate again, if you have an objection make your point and suggest either blanket refusal or seek alternatives.

Making spurious claims is likely to undermine your case. I have no position on this one and Im nothing to do with the applicant, but your approach has actually turned me in favour of the scheme for no other reason than your arguments are nonesensical

[DM]

I've created a rough model of the proposed building based on the architect's plans to give you a better idea of what this will look like. Some images here.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1366541@N22/

I've put it next to an (even rougher) model of the Village Hall to give an idea of scale. The model isn't finished, there are some skylights missing from the roof, but I think it gives you the general idea.

I think it's a nicely designed building and has matches the existing Village Hall very well.

This particular one shows the view from the nearest house on Huntersfield, which shows that the building doesn't obscure the view of any of the park.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danhuby/4295608387/in/pool-1366541@N22/

This is the view from Hunters Field on the road itself. I like how the design of the building means it is mostly hidden, but you can still see the 'playgroup' sign and entrance from the main road.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danhuby/4296355436/in/pool-1366541@N22

If I get time I'll take some photos of the site and superimpose the model over it, to get a more photo realistic impression.

[elephantgirl]

[MikeDew]

Due to Govt legislation the playgroup were left with the choice of a new building or closing. The parish council were sure that there would have been far more critical comments if the they had allowed the playgroup to close especially when it was not going to cost the community one penny and the proposed new building would be made available to village groups for storage etc. and will also incorporate a storage area for council equipment.
Although the rumour of "peppercorn" rent is circulating, the council has not yet decided and will be guided by the District Valuer as they do with the football club lease.
As for location - Millennium Green - No building permitted
Extend Village Hall - Not favoured by VH management
Rec Field - Not central and Parking
School - Parish Councils favoured site - Refused by OCC

Regarding the lack of recreational land within the village - the fact that an area of recreational land is being used for building has further resulted in Oxfordshire County Council revisiting the promise that they made several years ago to search and provide land in the village. To this end talks have taken place regarding use of land currently on agricultural lease, the first of these areas being the community woodland

[elephantgirl]

Thank you for these helpful additional comments Mike. My comments were based on the information available. The 'rumour' about peppercorn rent is presumably based on the fact that it is mentioned in the Design & Access statement? If the Parish Council are still considering, then that is fair enough.

The same Statement also mentions driveways (and garages, admittedly) for houses in Huntersfield.........there are probably only 3 in the vicinity of the Hall that have a drive or attached garage...on street parking around the Village Hall creates problems for vehicles trying to get from one end of the road to the other......if the parking is anything like it is outside school then there will be a problem.

I don't have an issue with Pre-School needing new premises; it is just disappointing that 'the system' is not more flexible to allow eveyone to benefit.....IF the VH could have been extended, everyone would benefit and more people may be prepared to accept the loss of some of the play area, if the benefits were not restricted to one group.....
_________________
Elephantgirl

[VICTOR]

The extra information is welcome, I am in favour of this going ahead. I have NEVER seen the play area being FULLY used and generally just a couple of lads playing football on a regular basis. The area being left will be adequate for the use it gets. The pre School playgroup will benefit the village as a whole. I am a little uneasy about Mike's comment however that the VH committee were not in favour of a VH extension. Why not? It is rather small for todays purposes.
_________________
Planet VM

[DM]

I've added a couple of photo composites:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/1366541@N22/pool/

[Mr T]

Sorry for being a bit dim , can you confirm, have you done the photomontages or have you taken them direct from the application?

if the former perhaps these should be presented to the Vale Council to help them determine the application ... they are very useful.

[DM]

[mc]

why cant it be built in the new estate? there is lots of room by the woods and it wouldnt look amiss with the rest of the new buildings there.

[DM]

[MikeDew]

The woods are an "ancient hedgerow" and cannot be disturbed. Do you not think that DW Homes would have used it if they could have to squeeze a few more houses in. Posters keep asking could it not have been built here or there, I can assure you that because of planning, various regulations or just plain refusal the playarea is the only place if there is to be a new building.

[Mr T]

What!! put in on six/sixths of the green space on the new estate - where will the children play?


MC "..it wouldnt look amiss with the rest of the new buildings there"

Presumably, those new buildings (which strangely take the form, shape, and appearance of .... TREES) are different than looking amiss next to the village hall ? hot damn! that made be laugh out loud.

You couldnt make this up.

[VICTOR]

It should be built in the centre of the village for the benefit of everybody.
A lot of people have obviously worked hard on this, I accept Mike Dew's assurance that other 'practical' sites have been looked at. DM although impartial, has done a good job with the plans/images and that is very much appreciated. I think it will enhance the area, there are some 'ugly' houses there, not yours DM which looks nice as do quite a few others.
_________________
Planet VM

[Mr T]

ermm .... nice diplomacy Victor thank the lord you are not Stanford's Emissary to the UN !

[mc]

At the end of the day, whatever anyone thinks it will get built. Periwinkle i am totally with you, some people on here are damn right rude, they all seem to think they are better than anyone else and i think its sad that people have nothing better to do than moan about trivual things. I am surely going to get someone sarcastic comment on my post but who cares, like someone said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

[VICTOR]

Just an aside, it was tongue in cheek. I was amused by the comment about the ghastly building ruining that part of the village. I think the new building looks quite nice in DM's images.
_________________
Planet VM

[periwinkle]

I would just like to point out all houses down huntersfield look the same nice ,a nice area there are a few with sale signs so the build wont affect them . and another thing if your child is partially sighted it means the are classed as disabled there are people in stanford with disabled children so they will keep an eye on there child more .

[VICTOR]

Welcome back periwinkle -glad you decided to continue.
_________________
Planet VM

[DM]

The fact revealed by Mike I think is the major tipping point in this for me, and having previously remained impartial I'd now like to say that I'm in favour of the development.

The following facts have been put forward during this debate, and as they come from people closely involved with the plans - from very reliable sources - I think we must believe them.

1) The Pre-school will close if it doesn't find a new building.

2) The proposed site is the only possible location for the development.

And if those facts are true it leads to an uncomfortable conclusion.

Those who are campaigning to "Save the Playground" (or more technically the less emotive "Save One Sixth of the Playground"), with all the best intentions no doubt, are also campaigning for the closure of the Pre-school.

Dan

[MikeDew]

I am impartial as well although I think that it would be a pity if the playgroup had to close.
I wonder if those campaigning against the site will if the project fails. stand up and declare to the village and press that they were responsible for closing the playgroup

[DM]

The software package I used for the 3D model has an area calculation feature. Just for the sake of accuracy, the area taken up by the proposed development including the fenced off outdoor areas and garage will take up 14.2% of the playground or almost exactly one seventh.

Dan

[Mr T]

What has been the Parish Council's stance on this, has it responded to the Vale??

[Helen 1]

Hi, I didn't know this site existed until just last week when a fellow supporter of the proposed new build brought it to my attention and since then I have been following the comments posted. I have to say that it seems that there are only a handful of people who write comments but I am hoping that there are many more villagers who read the postings. My reasons for adding comments are to give a different perspective to the proposal for building on the proposed site so please bear with me..

Children who are 3 years old have a right to attend a preschool/nursery setting for 5 sessions each week. This is a government initiative, and as such funding has been made available for all of those children. Without the village preschool children would have to travel to another village to get their entitlement. As it stands the village preschool is over subscribed and those children who have the right to funded sessions cannot be accommodated. In a small village like this there are many parents who either do not drive or do not have a car so without the preschool their children would not be able to attend a preschool setting and would go from a home environment straight into school.

Only recently on the News I heard that there is discussion at Government level to offer funded preschool places to children from age 2 and a half. From what I can understand this would mean even more pressure on the current facilities where the demand already outweighs available spaces.

Years ago, preschool was about children from families who could afford to pay for sessions and children would be dropped off for a couple of hours with adult supervision. In recent years things have changed. The government have introduced OFSTED who have very strict guidelines under which pre schools (and schools) can operate, the EYFS (Early Years Foundation Stage) has also been enforced. Whilst the children still learn through play the EYFS has stringent criteria where the development of children has to be recorded (just like in school), there are things that children of certain ages are expected to achieve before they go to school. All of this information is passed onto school before a child starts and this helps the Foundation Stage teachers direct their teaching practice to meet the needs of the children in the classroom.

I understand that the village preschool is one of just two remaining pack away pre schools left within Oxfordshire. This means that each day the staff gets out from a small storage area the activities for the session. These are not just random selections but play/activities that have a learning experience attached, planned and prepared for in advance to meet the needs of the children in session. The last OFSTED inspection at preschool resulted in a GOOD, and can be seen on the preschool website. As a Mum I think this was a great outcome especially given the constraints of a pack away facility. However, I understand that there is a move within all County councils across the country to 'do way' with pack away settings. There may come a time in the very near future when the village preschool will be closed down by OFSTED because the current facilities cannot support fully the demands of either OFSTED or the EYFS.

Last year the Government launched an initiative to further support all those preschool aged children 3 and over by offering a grant to develop the early experiences of children before they begin school. My understanding is that the village preschool, along with many other pack away pre schools, have applied for a grant to build a new building. This is a 'once in a lifetime' opportunity and when the money has been allocated that will be it. There will not be another grant next year or the year after.

I have seen the plans and proposals many times over the last 6 months or so. When I attended the Village Festival last summer with my family I saw them next to the preschool stand. I have also seen them on display in St Denys Church and at the Village Hall Festival in the Autumn (where The Folly News took photos of the preschool stand showing the proposals) and at the preschool AGM in November. Prior to this I understand there was a lot of begging to local landowners for a piece of land to build on, but nobody was forthcoming.

As far as I can see every avenue has been exhausted. The local school does not have enough land for a preschool to be built; Millennium Green cannot be built upon. The land within the new estate is protected and cannot be built upon. The only option is near the village hall. I think the ideal solution would have been to extend the village hall in some way or extend the current facilities, or even add on to the land adjacent to the car park but from what I have heard all of these options were dismissed by the Village Hall Committee. To this end I can't see any other option but for a new building to be put on the proposed site.

The plans are available to view on the preschool web site and I found them very interesting reading. The building being proposed will not take away the park or play facilities which are already in place, but the grass area would be reduced to accommodate the building. I think we are still very lucky to have our village football field between Cottage Road and Joyces Road where there is ample space for children and families to kick around a football and play. It also appears that the County Council are looking to give the village another piece of land to compensate for losing a piece of the park area.

As far as I can see the only option available now is to build on the site that has been proposed. After all, we are not talking about a private nursery but a facility for village children to attend in the early years before they start school. Surely this is something that the whole village should support.
This will be the 40th anniversary for preschool and I just wonder how many village children have gone through their doors during this time. I expect most families in the village will have had their children or grandchildren at preschool at some point! This is something the village should celebrate.

The benefits of a purpose built preschool are detailed on their web site. Children currently at preschool (including my own) are not allowed to display their work on the walls, notices have to be taken down each day, equipment has to be put away so the hall is clear for anyone else using the hall later in the day and on it goes. The staff also have the unfortunate task of checking the gated area outside preschool for dog pooh every morning - not a job I would like.

As a mum of 4 and having had 2 children go to preschool in the past and 1 at preschool now I think we should all think back a few years and remember the benefits that both parents and children gain from this valuable facility. It really saddens me to think that if this building does not go ahead now there will not be another chance and it will just be a matter of time before we are petitioning villagers to 'Save Our Preschool'. This is not a situation I would like to see in the future. All parents in the village with preschool aged children will be faced with the need to travel beyond Stanford in the Vale.

I would like to end my posting by saying thank you for taking the time to read my comments and suggest that if you really feel opposed to the planning application then there are official channels to go through. The planning department must have an obligation to consider all objections, equally if you support the application then again there are proper channels to follow and it really would be a great asset for the village to have this facility.