‘They are just garden sheds’ – school’s new classrooms could be torn down after complaints from neighbours

Bournemouth Echo: LEARNING CURVE: Kings School of English LEARNING CURVE: Kings School of English

A PAIR of “garden shed” classrooms built in the grounds of an English language school could be torn down after just one year due to residents’ concerns.

The two new classrooms were erected at Kings School of English in Braidley Road late last year, but the school had not sought planning permission beforehand.

Bournemouth councillors have now decided that the situation will be reassessed in a year’s time following complaints from neighbours.

David Mead, who lives in a block of flats next to the buildings, said the classrooms were “a travesty”.

He said: “Eight windows look directly in through my master bedroom window.

“It’s close enough for me to throw a cricket ball underarm and break the windows. In an ideal world, which I know we don’t live in, the college would have thought very carefully before embarking on such a cavalier building exercise.”

Mr Mead called for a number of new conditions to be put in place, including that the rooms would only be open from 9.30am until 4pm during the week, no smoking would be allowed, and the windows would be opaque and permanently closed.

Councillor David Smith said the school was “an important part of the town’s economy”, but added: “Businesses and residents have to live together in harmony.”

Cllr Ron Whittaker added: “I think it’s appalling. These are just garden sheds. They’ve got windows in them but they’re basically sheds.”

Cllr Lynda Price said the buildings represented “piecemeal development within a conservation area”.

Members of the committee decided to grant retrospective planning permission on a number of conditions, including that the classrooms will only be used between 8am and 6pm.

The school will have one year to work on changes, after which it can be called back before the council.

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:41am Sun 23 Feb 14

Bournemouth Ohec says...

Quote: Councillor David Smith said the school was “an important part of the town’s economy”, but added: “Businesses and residents have to live together in harmony.”

One way of living in harmony is not to abuse planning regulations.

Just because an organisation is important to the town's economy does not give it the ability to ride roughshod over the regulations
Quote: Councillor David Smith said the school was “an important part of the town’s economy”, but added: “Businesses and residents have to live together in harmony.” One way of living in harmony is not to abuse planning regulations. Just because an organisation is important to the town's economy does not give it the ability to ride roughshod over the regulations Bournemouth Ohec
  • Score: 68

10:08am Sun 23 Feb 14

MikeGB says...

I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.
I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made. MikeGB
  • Score: 17

10:13am Sun 23 Feb 14

Tripod says...

Thought you didn't need planning permission for a "Garden Shed".
Thought you didn't need planning permission for a "Garden Shed". Tripod
  • Score: 9

10:18am Sun 23 Feb 14

stevobath says...

MikeGB wrote:
I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.
This is a Language School, not an Education Authority Building.
I would think the students that use this school wouldn't have Mum or Dad dropping them off in cars!

I don't see any connection with a Primary school & a School Of English?
[quote][p][bold]MikeGB[/bold] wrote: I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.[/p][/quote]This is a Language School, not an Education Authority Building. I would think the students that use this school wouldn't have Mum or Dad dropping them off in cars! I don't see any connection with a Primary school & a School Of English? stevobath
  • Score: 10

10:27am Sun 23 Feb 14

afcb-mark says...

MikeGB wrote:
I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.
It's not a main stream school, it's a language school for foreign students so it's all about money I would have thought the council would be aware that by allowing retrospective planning permission on site that intrudes on others privacy after no planning permission was originally sought they will open up the flood gates for all to erect these large 'sheds' in their gardens. I don't see how they can allow one to do it and not others. This will be interesting.
[quote][p][bold]MikeGB[/bold] wrote: I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.[/p][/quote]It's not a main stream school, it's a language school for foreign students so it's all about money I would have thought the council would be aware that by allowing retrospective planning permission on site that intrudes on others privacy after no planning permission was originally sought they will open up the flood gates for all to erect these large 'sheds' in their gardens. I don't see how they can allow one to do it and not others. This will be interesting. afcb-mark
  • Score: 22

10:51am Sun 23 Feb 14

High Treason says...

Once again it shows big business controls the council. Leybourne House sold on the cheap, now this big con. If it was a private resident they would demand the huts removal. Why is it different?. No wonder some tax payers think there are some at the council who accept backhanders, what other reason could there be.
Once again it shows big business controls the council. Leybourne House sold on the cheap, now this big con. If it was a private resident they would demand the huts removal. Why is it different?. No wonder some tax payers think there are some at the council who accept backhanders, what other reason could there be. High Treason
  • Score: 33

11:02am Sun 23 Feb 14

nickynoodah says...

Tripod wrote:
Thought you didn't need planning permission for a "Garden Shed".
depends on the height you know
[quote][p][bold]Tripod[/bold] wrote: Thought you didn't need planning permission for a "Garden Shed".[/p][/quote]depends on the height you know nickynoodah
  • Score: 6

11:21am Sun 23 Feb 14

billy bumble says...

So once again a whiff from the Planning Department , and perception among some that great green greasy gobs of money has changed hands

Nothing will change - if the officers and Councillors at the time got away with IMAX they can get away with anything
So once again a whiff from the Planning Department , and perception among some that great green greasy gobs of money has changed hands Nothing will change - if the officers and Councillors at the time got away with IMAX they can get away with anything billy bumble
  • Score: 13

11:29am Sun 23 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

However this is dressed up it seems unavoidable to conclude that somebody at some stage made a conscious decision not to apply for planning permission before putting up these 'garden shed' classrooms,

The status or the importance of this (or indeed any business) should not immunise it from being held to fully account for failing to follow basic routine planning procedure. We little folk would certainly not get away with "“piecemeal development within a conservation area” as the Councillor put it.
However this is dressed up it seems unavoidable to conclude that somebody at some stage made a conscious decision not to apply for planning permission before putting up these 'garden shed' classrooms, The status or the importance of this (or indeed any business) should not immunise it from being held to fully account for failing to follow basic routine planning procedure. We little folk would certainly not get away with "“piecemeal development within a conservation area” as the Councillor put it. muscliffman
  • Score: 22

11:36am Sun 23 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Let's have a bet who demolish first, two sheds on private land serving as an educational facility or the decking and plastic grass occupying public land outside the Eddie Mitchell greasy spoon in Poole park
Let's have a bet who demolish first, two sheds on private land serving as an educational facility or the decking and plastic grass occupying public land outside the Eddie Mitchell greasy spoon in Poole park kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 12

11:42am Sun 23 Feb 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

afcb-mark wrote:
MikeGB wrote:
I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.
It's not a main stream school, it's a language school for foreign students so it's all about money I would have thought the council would be aware that by allowing retrospective planning permission on site that intrudes on others privacy after no planning permission was originally sought they will open up the flood gates for all to erect these large 'sheds' in their gardens. I don't see how they can allow one to do it and not others. This will be interesting.
you can build a very large shed in your garden without planning permission,that is not the issue.
the issue is that this is a business profiting by building business premises,breaking planning regulations and the council seem happy for them to do that.
people saying it will bring loads of money to the town are wrong,most of these students spend very little,literally go to school then go home and comune there.
they are not out spending wads of cash as some people would have you believe.
the only people profiting from this are the school and whoever at the council is getting a kickback!
[quote][p][bold]afcb-mark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MikeGB[/bold] wrote: I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.[/p][/quote]It's not a main stream school, it's a language school for foreign students so it's all about money I would have thought the council would be aware that by allowing retrospective planning permission on site that intrudes on others privacy after no planning permission was originally sought they will open up the flood gates for all to erect these large 'sheds' in their gardens. I don't see how they can allow one to do it and not others. This will be interesting.[/p][/quote]you can build a very large shed in your garden without planning permission,that is not the issue. the issue is that this is a business profiting by building business premises,breaking planning regulations and the council seem happy for them to do that. people saying it will bring loads of money to the town are wrong,most of these students spend very little,literally go to school then go home and comune there. they are not out spending wads of cash as some people would have you believe. the only people profiting from this are the school and whoever at the council is getting a kickback! thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 16

12:03pm Sun 23 Feb 14

BmthNewshound says...

Councillor David Smith said the school was “an important part of the town’s economy”, but added: “Businesses and residents have to live together in harmony.” ........ how is this living in harmony when the language school is simply flouting planning rules for commercial gain irrespective of the impact on local residents ?
.
This is just another example of the lack of consistency in decisions made by the planning committee and why the town is overrun with inappropriate and poor quality developments.
Councillor David Smith said the school was “an important part of the town’s economy”, but added: “Businesses and residents have to live together in harmony.” ........ how is this living in harmony when the language school is simply flouting planning rules for commercial gain irrespective of the impact on local residents ? . This is just another example of the lack of consistency in decisions made by the planning committee and why the town is overrun with inappropriate and poor quality developments. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 21

12:17pm Sun 23 Feb 14

MikeGB says...

stevobath wrote:
MikeGB wrote:
I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.
This is a Language School, not an Education Authority Building.
I would think the students that use this school wouldn't have Mum or Dad dropping them off in cars!

I don't see any connection with a Primary school & a School Of English?
It doesn't matter to me what the establishment concerned is, whether educational or commercial. If I had been an ice rink I would expect residents to be consulted and assessments made of the impact on them. Why does this not happen just because it brings in money, or in the case of education, because it has to go somewhere? Residents pay taxes and choose to live in a particular place. If a neighbour makes any changes that impact on those residents, surely it is the role of the authority to ensure all are suitably informed and compromises sought?
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MikeGB[/bold] wrote: I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.[/p][/quote]This is a Language School, not an Education Authority Building. I would think the students that use this school wouldn't have Mum or Dad dropping them off in cars! I don't see any connection with a Primary school & a School Of English?[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter to me what the establishment concerned is, whether educational or commercial. If I had been an ice rink I would expect residents to be consulted and assessments made of the impact on them. Why does this not happen just because it brings in money, or in the case of education, because it has to go somewhere? Residents pay taxes and choose to live in a particular place. If a neighbour makes any changes that impact on those residents, surely it is the role of the authority to ensure all are suitably informed and compromises sought? MikeGB
  • Score: 6

12:20pm Sun 23 Feb 14

High Treason says...

Those overlooking the eyesore should apply for a reduction in council tax.
Those overlooking the eyesore should apply for a reduction in council tax. High Treason
  • Score: 13

12:33pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Valerie W. says...

Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.
Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector. Valerie W.
  • Score: 6

12:45pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Chriswood says...

Valerie W. wrote:
Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.
Go and watch "12 Years a Slave," then you'll understand what the term means.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote: Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.[/p][/quote]Go and watch "12 Years a Slave," then you'll understand what the term means. Chriswood
  • Score: -4

12:55pm Sun 23 Feb 14

stevobath says...

MikeGB wrote:
stevobath wrote:
MikeGB wrote:
I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.
This is a Language School, not an Education Authority Building.
I would think the students that use this school wouldn't have Mum or Dad dropping them off in cars!

I don't see any connection with a Primary school & a School Of English?
It doesn't matter to me what the establishment concerned is, whether educational or commercial. If I had been an ice rink I would expect residents to be consulted and assessments made of the impact on them. Why does this not happen just because it brings in money, or in the case of education, because it has to go somewhere? Residents pay taxes and choose to live in a particular place. If a neighbour makes any changes that impact on those residents, surely it is the role of the authority to ensure all are suitably informed and compromises sought?
What if expanding the school made your' property more valuable?

would you be so concerned?

Personally I find most people are NIMBYS. Unless it benefits them they'd rather it was happening somewhere else.

We're one of the most overpopulated countries, yet want business growth, better schools etc. but people still want nothing to impose on them. Anyway, we'll see more of this in certain places due to planning laws changing etc.
It doesn't & won't effect me though. I live near to the Royal Crescent in Bath.
Even parking a car in the area I live is a cause for outcry!

I suggest the language school plant a load of Leylandii to cover up the 'sheds' & thus Mr Mead will be able to look out his window at the majesty of these wonderful trees that are both classy & practical.

I understand people like privacy but why is Mr Mead under the impression people want to look in on him in his bedroom? Get some net curtains if you're that paranoid Mr Mead
[quote][p][bold]MikeGB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MikeGB[/bold] wrote: I don't know the site in question, but whilst I fully support the need to expand schools with adequate facilities to cater for the rise in birth rate, it is time the residents affected by such work were given proper notice and consultation rights. I live near a primary school which has recently had a lot of new building work. It is, to my mind unsightly, but maybe it is good for the children and staff. My main concern is that following this work they too have installed temporary buildings, far enough away for our privacy not to be compromised but the expansion has already increased the obstruction caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children. The staff do not have sufficient parking and on school days it makes an otherwise quiet road very dangerous. Obstruction of drives, doors open whilst children are strapped into car seats, frustrated drivers trying to pass taking risks, not to mention tiny children crossing the road whilst their guardians are busy on their smartphones. My drive is often blocked for several minutes and on one occasion for a whole morning. I have grandchildren myself and understand how difficult it is to drop off and collect children, but surely the local authority should give local residents a say when planning these developments? The previous phase of development consulted parents and staff, as well as governors etc. a notice was put on the lamp-post after all decisions were made.[/p][/quote]This is a Language School, not an Education Authority Building. I would think the students that use this school wouldn't have Mum or Dad dropping them off in cars! I don't see any connection with a Primary school & a School Of English?[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter to me what the establishment concerned is, whether educational or commercial. If I had been an ice rink I would expect residents to be consulted and assessments made of the impact on them. Why does this not happen just because it brings in money, or in the case of education, because it has to go somewhere? Residents pay taxes and choose to live in a particular place. If a neighbour makes any changes that impact on those residents, surely it is the role of the authority to ensure all are suitably informed and compromises sought?[/p][/quote]What if expanding the school made your' property more valuable? would you be so concerned? Personally I find most people are NIMBYS. Unless it benefits them they'd rather it was happening somewhere else. We're one of the most overpopulated countries, yet want business growth, better schools etc. but people still want nothing to impose on them. Anyway, we'll see more of this in certain places due to planning laws changing etc. It doesn't & won't effect me though. I live near to the Royal Crescent in Bath. Even parking a car in the area I live is a cause for outcry! I suggest the language school plant a load of Leylandii to cover up the 'sheds' & thus Mr Mead will be able to look out his window at the majesty of these wonderful trees that are both classy & practical. I understand people like privacy but why is Mr Mead under the impression people want to look in on him in his bedroom? Get some net curtains if you're that paranoid Mr Mead stevobath
  • Score: -19

1:14pm Sun 23 Feb 14

spooki says...

If the windows are opaque and permenanty closed what's the big deal?
But how are they having them for a year? If they don't have planning permission, take them down now! Everyone should be treated the same.
If the windows are opaque and permenanty closed what's the big deal? But how are they having them for a year? If they don't have planning permission, take them down now! Everyone should be treated the same. spooki
  • Score: 7

2:23pm Sun 23 Feb 14

justme20092009 says...

allways people with nowt better to do then moan,,get a life
allways people with nowt better to do then moan,,get a life justme20092009
  • Score: -9

2:24pm Sun 23 Feb 14

rozmister says...

Valerie W. wrote:
Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.
I used to work for a language school ( not this one one of the market leaders internationally) and I loved it. The pay was decent for an unskilled job and I got free board. The work was simple although sometimes the hours were a bit long. Most of the young adults who attended seemed to enjoy themselves & lots are still my friends on Facebook and chat to me years later. It definitely wasn't virtual slavery!
[quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote: Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.[/p][/quote]I used to work for a language school ( not this one one of the market leaders internationally) and I loved it. The pay was decent for an unskilled job and I got free board. The work was simple although sometimes the hours were a bit long. Most of the young adults who attended seemed to enjoy themselves & lots are still my friends on Facebook and chat to me years later. It definitely wasn't virtual slavery! rozmister
  • Score: 1

2:32pm Sun 23 Feb 14

davidinbmth says...

Kings College. 17th February 2014.
1) My name is David Mead. I am an owner/ resident in the Glade for more than two years and a Director of both the management committee and also the freehold company. I am speaking on behalf of the residents of the Glade 3 Merlewood Close and also for Elizabeth Boon from Silchester Close.
2) May I firstly advise the committee that as neighbours of Kings College for the past few years we have been remarkably tolerant. We have listened to the noise of basketballs thumping on concrete in the basketball court. We have endured the dreadful noise of karaoke parties, the noise of football matches on TV being broadcast at high volume in the outdoor gazebo and as far as I am aware we have never once complained. On a number of occasions we have actually had to shut our windows in the summer time to keep out the noise of karaoke/ etc being generated by the students.
3) The straw that has broken the camel’s back was the building of two high quality classrooms right on our perimeter fence without any planning permission under the guise of temporary and for storage !!
4) A few points that are worthy of note. Firstly that these so called “temporary” buildings are actually expensive upmarket classrooms. With double skinned insulated walls / heating etc.
5) These may have been called at one point temporary storage buildings, but this does not appear to be reality. Many poor people would be happy to live in such dwellings.
6) It must have been known from the outset that planning permission would eventually be re-required but presumably the decision was taken to blast ahead and then apply if necessary retroactively.
7) It is interesting to note that the planning permission submitted specifically mentions opaque windows, however the current buildings have been erected with clear windows. No attempt was ever made when these classroom blocks were planned to reduce the effect on the Glade. Trees were cut down and bushes were cleared and all sixteen windows that could have pointed at the college are pointing directly at the Glade. Even the construction was done without any thought of the neighbours. Massive building noises right outside ones bedroom window at six o’clock on a Saturday morning is hardly going to produce harmony or goodwill !!
8) The immediate effect on the local residents of these classroom buildings is twofold . Firstly PRIVACY: in my apartment number twelve, all eight windows from one of the classroom blocks look directly into my master bedroom window. Mr Tom Hubbard and Councillor Dave Smith have both visited my flat and will confirm that this is the case. It is actually close enough for me to throw a cricket ball under-arm and break a window in the classroom. The first thing I see when I leave my bathroom is the classroom block windows.
9) In the next door apartment to mine the classrooms look directly into the lounge and in flat number six the classroom block overlooks into all the rooms on the ground floor.. Not exactly what we were anticipating when we bought into the Glade . A percentage of the high price paid was because of the fabulous secluded location and the peace and quiet.
10) Secondly the NOISE effect is considerable. There is already significant noise generated by the students of Kings College as already detailed earlier, but to have a classroom block right on our boundary is really not ideal. And for all the residents of the Silchester Close town houses the effect is just as bad. Probably worse !!

11) In an ideal world, Kings College would have thought carefully before embarking on such a cavalier building exercise. Clearly this did not happen and therefore no process of consultation took place and little thought if any went into the planning. When I spoke on the phone last year with the Principal of Kings College he categorically told me that he regularly consulted with the local neighbours to make sure that everyone was happy. This was a surprise to me then / and is still a mystery to me now. To the best of my knowledge this has never taken place / nobody I have spoken to has ever been in any communication with the principal of Kings College. No one from the Glade and none of the councillors / so I am unclear as to who he was referring to.

12) However in the spirit of neighbourly cooperation I can confirm that provided the following conditions regarding privacy and noise abatement are met, we would be prepared to agree to a one year trial of this so called temporary structure. There would be a review at the end of the first year of usage.
13) The key conditions to our agreement are as follows:-
14) As per the plan presented to the council: installation of opaque windows which cannot be opened. IE all these windows are permanently closed and locked. This to be confirmed by council representatives.

15) Sufficient heavy duty screening to be erected that nobody from the Glade can see the classrooms and vice versa. This screening to be in keeping with the area and agreed in advance with the Glade residents.

16) Agreed usage hours. Acceptable hours would be from 0930 to 4.00 pm Monday to Friday with no usage whatsoever under any circumstances on weekends or bank holidays.

17) A no smoking ban on the whole area.

18) No singing / dancing / musical activities of any sort and no electrical amplification of any sound whatsoever. The total usage of the classrooms to be restricted for the sole purposes of teaching English to Foreign Students. Also that all teachers be regularly updated that any noise outside of the classrooms should be curbed at all cost.

19) For the sake of good neighbours we would like to ask that the college agrees to the following condition: Stop having Karaoke parties at any time / and stop using electric amplification in the open air outside of the hours of 0930 to 4.00 pm anywhere on the site as this would hugely improve our quality of life.

20) I am curious and would like advice from the committee as to why the other planning application submitted for today has been put in front of the conservation officer and this application has not been. As far as I am aware Kings College is in a conservation area and I would have thought would be affected in the same way. Your comments please.

Provided that all the conditions above are agreed to and complied with “to the letter”, we can reluctantly agree to this compromise for a temporary period of one year and get on with living our lives. It is by no means ideal but for the sake of reasonableness we at the Glade are able to agree to this way forward.
I hope that this makes total sense and is a fair and reasonable assessment of the situation we find ourselves in. If you have any questions for me I would be pleased to answer them.
Kings College. 17th February 2014. 1) My name is David Mead. I am an owner/ resident in the Glade for more than two years and a Director of both the management committee and also the freehold company. I am speaking on behalf of the residents of the Glade 3 Merlewood Close and also for Elizabeth Boon from Silchester Close. 2) May I firstly advise the committee that as neighbours of Kings College for the past few years we have been remarkably tolerant. We have listened to the noise of basketballs thumping on concrete in the basketball court. We have endured the dreadful noise of karaoke parties, the noise of football matches on TV being broadcast at high volume in the outdoor gazebo and as far as I am aware we have never once complained. On a number of occasions we have actually had to shut our windows in the summer time to keep out the noise of karaoke/ etc being generated by the students. 3) The straw that has broken the camel’s back was the building of two high quality classrooms right on our perimeter fence without any planning permission under the guise of temporary and for storage !! 4) A few points that are worthy of note. Firstly that these so called “temporary” buildings are actually expensive upmarket classrooms. With double skinned insulated walls / heating etc. 5) These may have been called at one point temporary storage buildings, but this does not appear to be reality. Many poor people would be happy to live in such dwellings. 6) It must have been known from the outset that planning permission would eventually be re-required but presumably the decision was taken to blast ahead and then apply if necessary retroactively. 7) It is interesting to note that the planning permission submitted specifically mentions opaque windows, however the current buildings have been erected with clear windows. No attempt was ever made when these classroom blocks were planned to reduce the effect on the Glade. Trees were cut down and bushes were cleared and all sixteen windows that could have pointed at the college are pointing directly at the Glade. Even the construction was done without any thought of the neighbours. Massive building noises right outside ones bedroom window at six o’clock on a Saturday morning is hardly going to produce harmony or goodwill !! 8) The immediate effect on the local residents of these classroom buildings is twofold . Firstly PRIVACY: in my apartment number twelve, all eight windows from one of the classroom blocks look directly into my master bedroom window. Mr Tom Hubbard and Councillor Dave Smith have both visited my flat and will confirm that this is the case. It is actually close enough for me to throw a cricket ball under-arm and break a window in the classroom. The first thing I see when I leave my bathroom is the classroom block windows. 9) In the next door apartment to mine the classrooms look directly into the lounge and in flat number six the classroom block overlooks into all the rooms on the ground floor.. Not exactly what we were anticipating when we bought into the Glade . A percentage of the high price paid was because of the fabulous secluded location and the peace and quiet. 10) Secondly the NOISE effect is considerable. There is already significant noise generated by the students of Kings College as already detailed earlier, but to have a classroom block right on our boundary is really not ideal. And for all the residents of the Silchester Close town houses the effect is just as bad. Probably worse !! 11) In an ideal world, Kings College would have thought carefully before embarking on such a cavalier building exercise. Clearly this did not happen and therefore no process of consultation took place and little thought if any went into the planning. When I spoke on the phone last year with the Principal of Kings College he categorically told me that he regularly consulted with the local neighbours to make sure that everyone was happy. This was a surprise to me then / and is still a mystery to me now. To the best of my knowledge this has never taken place / nobody I have spoken to has ever been in any communication with the principal of Kings College. No one from the Glade and none of the councillors / so I am unclear as to who he was referring to. 12) However in the spirit of neighbourly cooperation I can confirm that provided the following conditions regarding privacy and noise abatement are met, we would be prepared to agree to a one year trial of this so called temporary structure. There would be a review at the end of the first year of usage. 13) The key conditions to our agreement are as follows:- 14) As per the plan presented to the council: installation of opaque windows which cannot be opened. IE all these windows are permanently closed and locked. This to be confirmed by council representatives. 15) Sufficient heavy duty screening to be erected that nobody from the Glade can see the classrooms and vice versa. This screening to be in keeping with the area and agreed in advance with the Glade residents. 16) Agreed usage hours. Acceptable hours would be from 0930 to 4.00 pm Monday to Friday with no usage whatsoever under any circumstances on weekends or bank holidays. 17) A no smoking ban on the whole area. 18) No singing / dancing / musical activities of any sort and no electrical amplification of any sound whatsoever. The total usage of the classrooms to be restricted for the sole purposes of teaching English to Foreign Students. Also that all teachers be regularly updated that any noise outside of the classrooms should be curbed at all cost. 19) For the sake of good neighbours we would like to ask that the college agrees to the following condition: Stop having Karaoke parties at any time / and stop using electric amplification in the open air outside of the hours of 0930 to 4.00 pm anywhere on the site as this would hugely improve our quality of life. 20) I am curious and would like advice from the committee as to why the other planning application submitted for today has been put in front of the conservation officer and this application has not been. As far as I am aware Kings College is in a conservation area and I would have thought would be affected in the same way. Your comments please. Provided that all the conditions above are agreed to and complied with “to the letter”, we can reluctantly agree to this compromise for a temporary period of one year and get on with living our lives. It is by no means ideal but for the sake of reasonableness we at the Glade are able to agree to this way forward. I hope that this makes total sense and is a fair and reasonable assessment of the situation we find ourselves in. If you have any questions for me I would be pleased to answer them. davidinbmth
  • Score: 18

4:47pm Sun 23 Feb 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

They're not important to the local economy!.
.
Their parents line the language schools pockets and that's it really.
.
Host families get some money to house and feed them but they contribute nothing to the local businesses.
.
Watch next time you see a group of them in a pub. They'll order one pint with six straws.
They're not important to the local economy!. . Their parents line the language schools pockets and that's it really. . Host families get some money to house and feed them but they contribute nothing to the local businesses. . Watch next time you see a group of them in a pub. They'll order one pint with six straws. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 4

5:03pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Tripod says...

"17) A no smoking ban on the whole area.", are you sure about that?
"17) A no smoking ban on the whole area.", are you sure about that? Tripod
  • Score: 3

6:10pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Yankee1 says...

Why are they allowed to stand - and given another year's grace - when they were never properly applied for?

Do they meet H&S/PFSTED requirements?

There are sheds, and there are approved temporary classroom structures. Are the the latter?

Re: noise/smoking; if you live next door to an establishment where such things have been going on for a long time, you more or less are stuck with it. Liking moving near a church - and complaining about the bells.

I see no reason why the windows cannot be made opaque; there is even a film that anyone can apply that costs next to nothing.

King's needs to mend a few fences.
Why are they allowed to stand - and given another year's grace - when they were never properly applied for? Do they meet H&S/PFSTED requirements? There are sheds, and there are approved temporary classroom structures. Are the the latter? Re: noise/smoking; if you live next door to an establishment where such things have been going on for a long time, you more or less are stuck with it. Liking moving near a church - and complaining about the bells. I see no reason why the windows cannot be made opaque; there is even a film that anyone can apply that costs next to nothing. King's needs to mend a few fences. Yankee1
  • Score: 5

6:11pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Yankee1 says...

*OFSTED
*OFSTED Yankee1
  • Score: -3

7:05pm Sun 23 Feb 14

bobthedestroyer says...

Cool, I can build an extension (double size of the house front and back without planning permission (being sarcastic)
Cool, I can build an extension (double size of the house front and back without planning permission (being sarcastic) bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 4

7:25pm Sun 23 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

Well said David Mead,this is a clear case of double standards,It is clearly not just the "sheds" but a lot more,and i wonder if any of those who support the college would like to put up with it themselves.Language schools and students get away with too much in the area,behaviour,litte
r,loud parties,anti social cycling where they think traffic lights do not apply to them,disregarding the lights at crossings,blocking pavements.Landlords and some businesses support them for their takings,but as someone has said some groups will sit all night on half a pint.Those living next to them or near have my deepest sympathy.
Well said David Mead,this is a clear case of double standards,It is clearly not just the "sheds" but a lot more,and i wonder if any of those who support the college would like to put up with it themselves.Language schools and students get away with too much in the area,behaviour,litte r,loud parties,anti social cycling where they think traffic lights do not apply to them,disregarding the lights at crossings,blocking pavements.Landlords and some businesses support them for their takings,but as someone has said some groups will sit all night on half a pint.Those living next to them or near have my deepest sympathy. pete woodley
  • Score: 7

8:57pm Sun 23 Feb 14

stevobath says...

rozmister wrote:
Valerie W. wrote:
Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.
I used to work for a language school ( not this one one of the market leaders internationally) and I loved it. The pay was decent for an unskilled job and I got free board. The work was simple although sometimes the hours were a bit long. Most of the young adults who attended seemed to enjoy themselves & lots are still my friends on Facebook and chat to me years later. It definitely wasn't virtual slavery!
Come, come now:What would you know as you only worked at one of these 'slave shops'?

You have to remember, in Bournemouth, only certain jobs are worthwhile
else you may be looked down upon by 90% of the readers of the ECHO, yet be called a 'scrounger,druggie or foreigner' if you live in Boscombe & so are automatically adjudged a N'er do well...

Surely you must have realised, that most people of a certain age & living in a particular area are superior?
Let's not forget Braidley Rd is an amazing, upmarket area, not too far from 'Crème De La Creme' of Dorset society so God forbid if anyone dare break planning rules there...

The true meaning of 'snob' is only apparent when you move away from Bournemouth, a town, bigger than many cities but it seems more & more, inhabited by folks you would expect to be populating a small village of barely 500 & all related through marriage & with the problems this brings.

Oh. I DO miss Bournemouth, just not most of the people who seem to inhabit the town. Obviously, genetics will take it's toll eventually & interlopers will 'refresh' an old & backward population.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote: Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.[/p][/quote]I used to work for a language school ( not this one one of the market leaders internationally) and I loved it. The pay was decent for an unskilled job and I got free board. The work was simple although sometimes the hours were a bit long. Most of the young adults who attended seemed to enjoy themselves & lots are still my friends on Facebook and chat to me years later. It definitely wasn't virtual slavery![/p][/quote]Come, come now:What would you know as you only worked at one of these 'slave shops'? You have to remember, in Bournemouth, only certain jobs are worthwhile else you may be looked down upon by 90% of the readers of the ECHO, yet be called a 'scrounger,druggie or foreigner' if you live in Boscombe & so are automatically adjudged a N'er do well... Surely you must have realised, that most people of a certain age & living in a particular area are superior? Let's not forget Braidley Rd is an amazing, upmarket area, not too far from 'Crème De La Creme' of Dorset society so God forbid if anyone dare break planning rules there... The true meaning of 'snob' is only apparent when you move away from Bournemouth, a town, bigger than many cities but it seems more & more, inhabited by folks you would expect to be populating a small village of barely 500 & all related through marriage & with the problems this brings. Oh. I DO miss Bournemouth, just not most of the people who seem to inhabit the town. Obviously, genetics will take it's toll eventually & interlopers will 'refresh' an old & backward population. stevobath
  • Score: -8

9:33pm Sun 23 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.
Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations. pete woodley
  • Score: 4

10:47pm Sun 23 Feb 14

davidinbmth says...

for the attention of the nice person who kindly suggested that I buy net curtains !! WHY ?? these are not cheap flats ..one of the people most effected here . paid three hundred and ninety thousand pounds for a small flat and it is now completely overlooked !! not nice !!
hence the Angst ....
for the attention of the nice person who kindly suggested that I buy net curtains !! WHY ?? these are not cheap flats ..one of the people most effected here . paid three hundred and ninety thousand pounds for a small flat and it is now completely overlooked !! not nice !! hence the Angst .... davidinbmth
  • Score: 7

10:54pm Sun 23 Feb 14

davidinbmth says...

Yankee1 wrote:
Why are they allowed to stand - and given another year's grace - when they were never properly applied for?

Do they meet H&S/PFSTED requirements?

There are sheds, and there are approved temporary classroom structures. Are the the latter?

Re: noise/smoking; if you live next door to an establishment where such things have been going on for a long time, you more or less are stuck with it. Liking moving near a church - and complaining about the bells.

I see no reason why the windows cannot be made opaque; there is even a film that anyone can apply that costs next to nothing.

King's needs to mend a few fences.
changing the windows is easy ..and as you say there is cheap film ... Noise is the real issue ...anyways the EHO is now involved ... and we are looking at whether a tennis court is actually a basketball court !! and various other issues that effect all of us here at the Glade
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: Why are they allowed to stand - and given another year's grace - when they were never properly applied for? Do they meet H&S/PFSTED requirements? There are sheds, and there are approved temporary classroom structures. Are the the latter? Re: noise/smoking; if you live next door to an establishment where such things have been going on for a long time, you more or less are stuck with it. Liking moving near a church - and complaining about the bells. I see no reason why the windows cannot be made opaque; there is even a film that anyone can apply that costs next to nothing. King's needs to mend a few fences.[/p][/quote]changing the windows is easy ..and as you say there is cheap film ... Noise is the real issue ...anyways the EHO is now involved ... and we are looking at whether a tennis court is actually a basketball court !! and various other issues that effect all of us here at the Glade davidinbmth
  • Score: 5

11:03pm Sun 23 Feb 14

davidinbmth says...

Yankee1 wrote:
Why are they allowed to stand - and given another year's grace - when they were never properly applied for?

Do they meet H&S/PFSTED requirements?

There are sheds, and there are approved temporary classroom structures. Are the the latter?

Re: noise/smoking; if you live next door to an establishment where such things have been going on for a long time, you more or less are stuck with it. Liking moving near a church - and complaining about the bells.

I see no reason why the windows cannot be made opaque; there is even a film that anyone can apply that costs next to nothing.

King's needs to mend a few fences.
they are having to put in fire extinguishers etc to conform to H and S
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: Why are they allowed to stand - and given another year's grace - when they were never properly applied for? Do they meet H&S/PFSTED requirements? There are sheds, and there are approved temporary classroom structures. Are the the latter? Re: noise/smoking; if you live next door to an establishment where such things have been going on for a long time, you more or less are stuck with it. Liking moving near a church - and complaining about the bells. I see no reason why the windows cannot be made opaque; there is even a film that anyone can apply that costs next to nothing. King's needs to mend a few fences.[/p][/quote]they are having to put in fire extinguishers etc to conform to H and S davidinbmth
  • Score: 2

11:12pm Sun 23 Feb 14

davidinbmth says...

stevobath wrote:
rozmister wrote:
Valerie W. wrote:
Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.
I used to work for a language school ( not this one one of the market leaders internationally) and I loved it. The pay was decent for an unskilled job and I got free board. The work was simple although sometimes the hours were a bit long. Most of the young adults who attended seemed to enjoy themselves & lots are still my friends on Facebook and chat to me years later. It definitely wasn't virtual slavery!
Come, come now:What would you know as you only worked at one of these 'slave shops'?

You have to remember, in Bournemouth, only certain jobs are worthwhile
else you may be looked down upon by 90% of the readers of the ECHO, yet be called a 'scrounger,druggie or foreigner' if you live in Boscombe & so are automatically adjudged a N'er do well...

Surely you must have realised, that most people of a certain age & living in a particular area are superior?
Let's not forget Braidley Rd is an amazing, upmarket area, not too far from 'Crème De La Creme' of Dorset society so God forbid if anyone dare break planning rules there...

The true meaning of 'snob' is only apparent when you move away from Bournemouth, a town, bigger than many cities but it seems more & more, inhabited by folks you would expect to be populating a small village of barely 500 & all related through marriage & with the problems this brings.

Oh. I DO miss Bournemouth, just not most of the people who seem to inhabit the town. Obviously, genetics will take it's toll eventually & interlopers will 'refresh' an old & backward population.
really have no idea what this was all about .... you must have been smoking some thing illegal !!! entertaining and meaningless !! Braidley road is just a centre of Bmth location with excessively high rates !!
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote: Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.[/p][/quote]I used to work for a language school ( not this one one of the market leaders internationally) and I loved it. The pay was decent for an unskilled job and I got free board. The work was simple although sometimes the hours were a bit long. Most of the young adults who attended seemed to enjoy themselves & lots are still my friends on Facebook and chat to me years later. It definitely wasn't virtual slavery![/p][/quote]Come, come now:What would you know as you only worked at one of these 'slave shops'? You have to remember, in Bournemouth, only certain jobs are worthwhile else you may be looked down upon by 90% of the readers of the ECHO, yet be called a 'scrounger,druggie or foreigner' if you live in Boscombe & so are automatically adjudged a N'er do well... Surely you must have realised, that most people of a certain age & living in a particular area are superior? Let's not forget Braidley Rd is an amazing, upmarket area, not too far from 'Crème De La Creme' of Dorset society so God forbid if anyone dare break planning rules there... The true meaning of 'snob' is only apparent when you move away from Bournemouth, a town, bigger than many cities but it seems more & more, inhabited by folks you would expect to be populating a small village of barely 500 & all related through marriage & with the problems this brings. Oh. I DO miss Bournemouth, just not most of the people who seem to inhabit the town. Obviously, genetics will take it's toll eventually & interlopers will 'refresh' an old & backward population.[/p][/quote]really have no idea what this was all about .... you must have been smoking some thing illegal !!! entertaining and meaningless !! Braidley road is just a centre of Bmth location with excessively high rates !! davidinbmth
  • Score: 6

11:22pm Sun 23 Feb 14

X Old Bill says...

Opaque means that NO LIGHT can pass through.

Another name for an opaque window is a wall.

Perhaps someone means translucent or even obscure.

All words in the English language, I wonder whether this school teaches such obvious differences.
Opaque means that NO LIGHT can pass through. Another name for an opaque window is a wall. Perhaps someone means translucent or even obscure. All words in the English language, I wonder whether this school teaches such obvious differences. X Old Bill
  • Score: 3

12:04am Mon 24 Feb 14

stevobath says...

davidinbmth wrote:
for the attention of the nice person who kindly suggested that I buy net curtains !! WHY ?? these are not cheap flats ..one of the people most effected here . paid three hundred and ninety thousand pounds for a small flat and it is now completely overlooked !! not nice !!
hence the Angst ....
£390,000? OMG
You were ripped off.
You poor thing. Imagine that, being overlooked.
I'm sure your life's taken a downward trajectory because of this? What's to become of you?

Over a 1/3 of the world has no access to clean water & sanitation, but that's nothing compared to someone being 'overlooked'...I feel for you. The hardship you must be going through....
[quote][p][bold]davidinbmth[/bold] wrote: for the attention of the nice person who kindly suggested that I buy net curtains !! WHY ?? these are not cheap flats ..one of the people most effected here . paid three hundred and ninety thousand pounds for a small flat and it is now completely overlooked !! not nice !! hence the Angst ....[/p][/quote]£390,000? OMG You were ripped off. You poor thing. Imagine that, being overlooked. I'm sure your life's taken a downward trajectory because of this? What's to become of you? Over a 1/3 of the world has no access to clean water & sanitation, but that's nothing compared to someone being 'overlooked'...I feel for you. The hardship you must be going through.... stevobath
  • Score: -7

12:12am Mon 24 Feb 14

stevobath says...

davidinbmth wrote:
stevobath wrote:
rozmister wrote:
Valerie W. wrote:
Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.
I used to work for a language school ( not this one one of the market leaders internationally) and I loved it. The pay was decent for an unskilled job and I got free board. The work was simple although sometimes the hours were a bit long. Most of the young adults who attended seemed to enjoy themselves & lots are still my friends on Facebook and chat to me years later. It definitely wasn't virtual slavery!
Come, come now:What would you know as you only worked at one of these 'slave shops'?

You have to remember, in Bournemouth, only certain jobs are worthwhile
else you may be looked down upon by 90% of the readers of the ECHO, yet be called a 'scrounger,druggie or foreigner' if you live in Boscombe & so are automatically adjudged a N'er do well...

Surely you must have realised, that most people of a certain age & living in a particular area are superior?
Let's not forget Braidley Rd is an amazing, upmarket area, not too far from 'Crème De La Creme' of Dorset society so God forbid if anyone dare break planning rules there...

The true meaning of 'snob' is only apparent when you move away from Bournemouth, a town, bigger than many cities but it seems more & more, inhabited by folks you would expect to be populating a small village of barely 500 & all related through marriage & with the problems this brings.

Oh. I DO miss Bournemouth, just not most of the people who seem to inhabit the town. Obviously, genetics will take it's toll eventually & interlopers will 'refresh' an old & backward population.
really have no idea what this was all about .... you must have been smoking some thing illegal !!! entertaining and meaningless !! Braidley road is just a centre of Bmth location with excessively high rates !!
I'm glad someone spotted my needless,pointless waffle? I do object to being accused of 'smoking something'...I gave up heroin nearly 14 years ago & avoid smoking anything illegal, due to not wanting to relapse. How insulting you are.

I read absolute waffle on these pages everyday, yet don't believe anyone is 'smoking' anything. It's easy to talk out of one's 'third eye' (brown
BTW) with no need for any drugs legal or not. In fact I think maybe a few 'tightly strung' people NEED to have a smoke of some Class B as it might calm them down a bit.
[quote][p][bold]davidinbmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote: Language schools bring in cash for the council and the owners. They fund houses in Sandbanks and fast cars. On the other hand, employees work in conditions of virtual slavery and clients generally leave dissatisfied. The whole system needs reviewing and correcting. These sheds are a potent symbol of the rot running through the whole sector.[/p][/quote]I used to work for a language school ( not this one one of the market leaders internationally) and I loved it. The pay was decent for an unskilled job and I got free board. The work was simple although sometimes the hours were a bit long. Most of the young adults who attended seemed to enjoy themselves & lots are still my friends on Facebook and chat to me years later. It definitely wasn't virtual slavery![/p][/quote]Come, come now:What would you know as you only worked at one of these 'slave shops'? You have to remember, in Bournemouth, only certain jobs are worthwhile else you may be looked down upon by 90% of the readers of the ECHO, yet be called a 'scrounger,druggie or foreigner' if you live in Boscombe & so are automatically adjudged a N'er do well... Surely you must have realised, that most people of a certain age & living in a particular area are superior? Let's not forget Braidley Rd is an amazing, upmarket area, not too far from 'Crème De La Creme' of Dorset society so God forbid if anyone dare break planning rules there... The true meaning of 'snob' is only apparent when you move away from Bournemouth, a town, bigger than many cities but it seems more & more, inhabited by folks you would expect to be populating a small village of barely 500 & all related through marriage & with the problems this brings. Oh. I DO miss Bournemouth, just not most of the people who seem to inhabit the town. Obviously, genetics will take it's toll eventually & interlopers will 'refresh' an old & backward population.[/p][/quote]really have no idea what this was all about .... you must have been smoking some thing illegal !!! entertaining and meaningless !! Braidley road is just a centre of Bmth location with excessively high rates !![/p][/quote]I'm glad someone spotted my needless,pointless waffle? I do object to being accused of 'smoking something'...I gave up heroin nearly 14 years ago & avoid smoking anything illegal, due to not wanting to relapse. How insulting you are. I read absolute waffle on these pages everyday, yet don't believe anyone is 'smoking' anything. It's easy to talk out of one's 'third eye' (brown BTW) with no need for any drugs legal or not. In fact I think maybe a few 'tightly strung' people NEED to have a smoke of some Class B as it might calm them down a bit. stevobath
  • Score: -12

12:23am Mon 24 Feb 14

stevobath says...

pete woodley wrote:
Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.
Just an observation & I was aiming for a more intellectual 'ramble' than that Idiot Savant 'Nicky Noodah' or whatever it's called, usually comes out with.

I'm totally with you on the 'middle class' snobbery. I grew up, in a Council House in Southbourne, surrounded by Thatcher worshippers, you know, the ones whose families were lucky enough to have a home provided for decades by the corporation, bought said home VERY cheaply but are now first in line to condemn anyone who lives in Social Housing now but they are unaware or maybe just being obtuse, to the fact that they are hypocrites who were LUCKY to have their house purchase UNDERWRITTEN, sometimes by nearly 60% of the real worth of said home.

As for you being a Conservative? I'm disappointed in you Mr Woodley, I really am! :)
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.[/p][/quote]Just an observation & I was aiming for a more intellectual 'ramble' than that Idiot Savant 'Nicky Noodah' or whatever it's called, usually comes out with. I'm totally with you on the 'middle class' snobbery. I grew up, in a Council House in Southbourne, surrounded by Thatcher worshippers, you know, the ones whose families were lucky enough to have a home provided for decades by the corporation, bought said home VERY cheaply but are now first in line to condemn anyone who lives in Social Housing now but they are unaware or maybe just being obtuse, to the fact that they are hypocrites who were LUCKY to have their house purchase UNDERWRITTEN, sometimes by nearly 60% of the real worth of said home. As for you being a Conservative? I'm disappointed in you Mr Woodley, I really am! :) stevobath
  • Score: -3

8:22am Mon 24 Feb 14

Lord Spring says...

stevobath wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.
Just an observation & I was aiming for a more intellectual 'ramble' than that Idiot Savant 'Nicky Noodah' or whatever it's called, usually comes out with.

I'm totally with you on the 'middle class' snobbery. I grew up, in a Council House in Southbourne, surrounded by Thatcher worshippers, you know, the ones whose families were lucky enough to have a home provided for decades by the corporation, bought said home VERY cheaply but are now first in line to condemn anyone who lives in Social Housing now but they are unaware or maybe just being obtuse, to the fact that they are hypocrites who were LUCKY to have their house purchase UNDERWRITTEN, sometimes by nearly 60% of the real worth of said home.

As for you being a Conservative? I'm disappointed in you Mr Woodley, I really am! :)
"Steveobath
I suggest the language school plant a load of Leylandii to cover up the 'sheds' & thus Mr Mead will be able to look out his window at the majesty of these wonderful trees that are both classy & practical. "

If more than 3 a planted in a row then the a height restriction of will have to be placed on those weeds you so much admire

The current legislation on high hedges comes under Section 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003). This allows councils to take action where the hedge has grown to a height where “the hedge is adversely affecting the complainant’s reasonable enjoyment of their property”.
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.[/p][/quote]Just an observation & I was aiming for a more intellectual 'ramble' than that Idiot Savant 'Nicky Noodah' or whatever it's called, usually comes out with. I'm totally with you on the 'middle class' snobbery. I grew up, in a Council House in Southbourne, surrounded by Thatcher worshippers, you know, the ones whose families were lucky enough to have a home provided for decades by the corporation, bought said home VERY cheaply but are now first in line to condemn anyone who lives in Social Housing now but they are unaware or maybe just being obtuse, to the fact that they are hypocrites who were LUCKY to have their house purchase UNDERWRITTEN, sometimes by nearly 60% of the real worth of said home. As for you being a Conservative? I'm disappointed in you Mr Woodley, I really am! :)[/p][/quote]"Steveobath I suggest the language school plant a load of Leylandii to cover up the 'sheds' & thus Mr Mead will be able to look out his window at the majesty of these wonderful trees that are both classy & practical. " If more than 3 a planted in a row then the a height restriction of will have to be placed on those weeds you so much admire The current legislation on high hedges comes under Section 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003). This allows councils to take action where the hedge has grown to a height where “the hedge is adversely affecting the complainant’s reasonable enjoyment of their property”. Lord Spring
  • Score: 0

8:49am Mon 24 Feb 14

RM says...

'Retrospective planning permission', and leaving them up for a year? 'an important part of the town's economy'. Maybe B'mouth residents need to rethink where they place their 'x' in 2015?
'Retrospective planning permission', and leaving them up for a year? 'an important part of the town's economy'. Maybe B'mouth residents need to rethink where they place their 'x' in 2015? RM
  • Score: 5

9:10am Mon 24 Feb 14

stevobath says...

Lord Spring wrote:
stevobath wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.
Just an observation & I was aiming for a more intellectual 'ramble' than that Idiot Savant 'Nicky Noodah' or whatever it's called, usually comes out with.

I'm totally with you on the 'middle class' snobbery. I grew up, in a Council House in Southbourne, surrounded by Thatcher worshippers, you know, the ones whose families were lucky enough to have a home provided for decades by the corporation, bought said home VERY cheaply but are now first in line to condemn anyone who lives in Social Housing now but they are unaware or maybe just being obtuse, to the fact that they are hypocrites who were LUCKY to have their house purchase UNDERWRITTEN, sometimes by nearly 60% of the real worth of said home.

As for you being a Conservative? I'm disappointed in you Mr Woodley, I really am! :)
"Steveobath
I suggest the language school plant a load of Leylandii to cover up the 'sheds' & thus Mr Mead will be able to look out his window at the majesty of these wonderful trees that are both classy & practical. "

If more than 3 a planted in a row then the a height restriction of will have to be placed on those weeds you so much admire

The current legislation on high hedges comes under Section 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003). This allows councils to take action where the hedge has grown to a height where “the hedge is adversely affecting the complainant’s reasonable enjoyment of their property”.
Are you a bit thick or what?

I was being sarcastic.

Wake up FFS.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.[/p][/quote]Just an observation & I was aiming for a more intellectual 'ramble' than that Idiot Savant 'Nicky Noodah' or whatever it's called, usually comes out with. I'm totally with you on the 'middle class' snobbery. I grew up, in a Council House in Southbourne, surrounded by Thatcher worshippers, you know, the ones whose families were lucky enough to have a home provided for decades by the corporation, bought said home VERY cheaply but are now first in line to condemn anyone who lives in Social Housing now but they are unaware or maybe just being obtuse, to the fact that they are hypocrites who were LUCKY to have their house purchase UNDERWRITTEN, sometimes by nearly 60% of the real worth of said home. As for you being a Conservative? I'm disappointed in you Mr Woodley, I really am! :)[/p][/quote]"Steveobath I suggest the language school plant a load of Leylandii to cover up the 'sheds' & thus Mr Mead will be able to look out his window at the majesty of these wonderful trees that are both classy & practical. " If more than 3 a planted in a row then the a height restriction of will have to be placed on those weeds you so much admire The current legislation on high hedges comes under Section 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003). This allows councils to take action where the hedge has grown to a height where “the hedge is adversely affecting the complainant’s reasonable enjoyment of their property”.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit thick or what? I was being sarcastic. Wake up FFS. stevobath
  • Score: -3

9:18am Mon 24 Feb 14

nickynoodah says...

you did go on a bit George
tanked up as usual
put it away for petes sake
you did go on a bit George tanked up as usual put it away for petes sake nickynoodah
  • Score: 1

11:30am Mon 24 Feb 14

Wageslave says...

Mr Mead trying lighting a bonfire on a regular basis, they will soon close the windows or even move the sheds altogether.
Mr Mead trying lighting a bonfire on a regular basis, they will soon close the windows or even move the sheds altogether. Wageslave
  • Score: 2

7:38pm Tue 25 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

stevobath wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.
Just an observation & I was aiming for a more intellectual 'ramble' than that Idiot Savant 'Nicky Noodah' or whatever it's called, usually comes out with.

I'm totally with you on the 'middle class' snobbery. I grew up, in a Council House in Southbourne, surrounded by Thatcher worshippers, you know, the ones whose families were lucky enough to have a home provided for decades by the corporation, bought said home VERY cheaply but are now first in line to condemn anyone who lives in Social Housing now but they are unaware or maybe just being obtuse, to the fact that they are hypocrites who were LUCKY to have their house purchase UNDERWRITTEN, sometimes by nearly 60% of the real worth of said home.

As for you being a Conservative? I'm disappointed in you Mr Woodley, I really am! :)
I was conservative,but now i trust no party,especially in local politics.being a councilor now is having a well paid part time job,better still if a cabinet member. Just wonder if anyone in Redhill has seen their latest conservative councilor or even read or heard about him ?.At least you could often see Pat Lewis.
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Stevobath,sorry steve but not sure what point you are trying to put over,could be my old age,but it was not your usual style of comment.There is a lot of snobbishness about but also a lot of low standards.Its not always the rich who are snobbish,Some of the so called "middle class" think a lot of themselves,which i found out when i was a signed up conservative.This applies to councilors from all parties,and can be found in most organisations.[/p][/quote]Just an observation & I was aiming for a more intellectual 'ramble' than that Idiot Savant 'Nicky Noodah' or whatever it's called, usually comes out with. I'm totally with you on the 'middle class' snobbery. I grew up, in a Council House in Southbourne, surrounded by Thatcher worshippers, you know, the ones whose families were lucky enough to have a home provided for decades by the corporation, bought said home VERY cheaply but are now first in line to condemn anyone who lives in Social Housing now but they are unaware or maybe just being obtuse, to the fact that they are hypocrites who were LUCKY to have their house purchase UNDERWRITTEN, sometimes by nearly 60% of the real worth of said home. As for you being a Conservative? I'm disappointed in you Mr Woodley, I really am! :)[/p][/quote]I was conservative,but now i trust no party,especially in local politics.being a councilor now is having a well paid part time job,better still if a cabinet member. Just wonder if anyone in Redhill has seen their latest conservative councilor or even read or heard about him ?.At least you could often see Pat Lewis. pete woodley
  • Score: 1

11:00pm Tue 25 Feb 14

stevobath says...

nickynoodah wrote:
you did go on a bit George
tanked up as usual
put it away for petes sake
Get a job you total p r I ck .
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: you did go on a bit George tanked up as usual put it away for petes sake[/p][/quote]Get a job you total p r I ck . stevobath
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree