Alleyns Junior School - planning

[goldilocks]

Motor bird- just a follow up to the clarification you provided above. You state that the school is expanding their intake at reception and reducing it from year 3 and that this change from 1-2 form to 2 form throughout will not result in more children going into the secondary school.

Whilst this is correct in terms of no change to the numbers who can go straight through to the senior school, it WILL result in more children attending the ?junior school? and as you note, these additional children at this age will not be allowed to use the coaches. Therefore if they do not walk there will be more cars coming to the site.

I?m not sure anyone is confused about the plans.

[Bicknell]

Saw this from Clean Air Dulwich https://twitter.com/i/status/1220453205718511616

[EDfor]

Everyone should look at the brilliant Dulwich Clean Air posting - it says and shows the problem/s caused by Alleyn's and the congestion and environmental problems which have plagued the area, and undermined its quality of life for years.

There have been major building and expansion works going on at the school for something like 10 years now and surely it must be time to call a halt and fully assess the environmental cost of this business to the local community.

[LoulaRose]

Bicknell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saw this from Clean Air Dulwich

> https://twitter.com/i/status/1220453205718511616

Phase 3 of Our Healthy Streets has been published, including proposals for changes to the Village layout.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

It will impact the Village area and Burbage and Turney Roads where there will be further consultations about proposals for timed access restrictions, permeable closure/one way entry and parking controls.

[creditwheredue]

I?ve just received a healthy street proposal from the council.

Townley Road to be closed during peak times except for cyclists. No access at all to Eynella Street and the Carlton Avenue junction at the village which are to be pedestrians and cyclists only.

With regards to the Townley Road proposal the cynic in me says that rather than Alleyn?s sort out the problem that they cause, all other road users with the exception of bikes will have to suffer re-routing.

[cleanairdulwich]

Come to this talk held at JAGS by Dulwich Safe Routes to Schools to understand why we're so passionate about the need to reduce air pollution

https://www.trybooking.com/uk/book/event?eid=10088&

[Penguin68]

Townley Road to be closed during peak times except for cyclists

There is a need to define 'peak times' here - the peak for Townley Road is at school start and end, and only during term. Standard commuting peak will miss the afternoon school end.

[creditwheredue]

The council need to start thinking about the impact this proposal will have on Melbourne Grove.

[JEG1]

I'm not defending anyone here, as I'm a firm believer in children attending their local school, if possible, and I don't drive anywhere, but it seems that Alleyn's are being blamed here for all the pollution and congestion problems in Dulwich. Try walking up Forest Hill Road during the school run. The pollution is far worse there. And it's certainly not just 'priveleged' children who get driven to school (which is what this thread seems to suggest). This is inner London. The population is continually rising and so is the demand for school places, both date and private!

[macutd]

It's Alleyns that drive up my road every day. Trossachs

[Townleygreen]

OK, so that's Trossachs - which is virtually next door to Alleyns. Similar issues with Harris ED in Forest Hill rd as JEG1's post reminds us. It's bound to be difficult when you're next to a school.

[macutd]

the traffic is greater at Alleyns because they are not local children attending their local school but children driven from a much wider area

[goldilocks]

Exactly this - its purely factual that Alleyns kids on the whole come from a much wider area than those at distance criteria state schools.

The short video posted above from 'Clean Air for Dulwich' clearly shows the difference between term time and holidays in terms of impact on local roads.

Years of discussion and consultation with the school has done nothing to improve the situation for the local community and the concentration of independent schools with Alleyns and JAGs being located virtually opposite exacerbates the issue.

The Dulwich Healthy Streets proposals may help reduce the number of parents who chose to drive / have their kids driven to Alleyns, but until this is in place and the current situation improves I don't think that further expansion should be granted.

macutd Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the traffic is greater at Alleyns because they are

> not local children attending their local school

> but children driven from a much wider area

[JEG1]

Kingsdale doesn't have a catchment area and they are increasing their Published Admission Number this year due to 'record breaking demand'.

[goldilocks]

This point about increasing numbers is precisely why I believe that we should oppose this expansion planning permission request by Alleyn?s at this time.

The number of additional children as a result of planning expansion in Alleyns docs on the planning portal is stated as between 35-42 additional kids but once built there will be no further requirement to consult again if they want to increase numbers in those 3 extra classes and it?s more realistic to assume that the additional children attending by expansion will be 60-66 rather than 35-42!

[EDfor]

That would certainly fit Alleyn's record of saying one thing & then doing another.

Today I believe is the last day to make a comment.

Southwark Planning Register ref: 19/AP/5616

at least according to the important docs section on their dreadful planning website! It would be nice to think there was an extension till 12th Feb

Also am I alone in thinking there ought to be a single clear summary of these proposals - who is going to download 75 different planning docs??

[goldilocks]

https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1220453205718511616?s=21

Comments were extended until the 12th Feb

[JEG1]

Kingsdale (Alleyn Park) has more pupils than Alleyn's senior school. Kingsdale's catchment is also getting wider every year, as they don't have a distance criteria on their admissions policy. They are also increasing their published intake this year, in response to the overwhelming demand for school places. I'm just comparing two local schools, one private, one state, same issues. Parents drive their children to both schools. Our population is growing and their aren't enough school places. We all need to stop driving everywhere, not just parents taking children to school. We also need school places.

[DadOf4]

I have just added further comments to the planning application https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=PYNGQHKBIKR00

It is worth noting that Alleyns are clearly trying to get "technical" here - the recent air quality report and transport plan are there to "scientifically" show how (a) there isn't really a problem (b) increased problems due to expansion will be insignificant/ below acceptable limits and © theyre doing lots to mitigate

I don't believe any of that and their air quality report is fundamentally flawed - but theyre playing a legal game around planning laws and using scaring looking reports to show that there is no case to answer. I therefore think that they will use this to try and discount "general" objections around air quality/traffic. I encourage others to look at their new information in detail

My comments on planning portal:

I would like to add further comments after the publishing of the documents "Air Quality Assessment" (3/1/20) and "Travel Plan" (7/1/20)

The air quality assessment has clearly been produced to create a case that the potential increased pollution is insignificant. Its data and method are fundamentally flawed and can not be used to draw the conclusions that the report makes. The use of AURN sites, which (with the exception of SD10) that are on streets that are likely to have zero traffic related to this school or its expansion , to form a baseline, is flawed. The increased pollution would be heavily localised and can only be modelled through use of monitoring sites on roads likely to be affected. This report is scientifically unfit for purpose and should be discounted.

It is also worth noting that Southwark is currently (and separately) consulting on other measures to deal with traffic pollution in this area. Results from that consultation show "Air quality profiles shows that pollution concentration is worse in around 7:00-10am and 15:00-19:00 "

It also states: "is an extremely high volume of pedestrian traffic at Dulwich Village and at the junction of East Dulwich Grove with Townley Road"

I find it ironic that Southwark council see the problem as bad enough to warrant a major, area wide, consultation but this report declares effectively that air pollution is within acceptable limits - when viewed from the context of one of the organisations contributing most to that traffic

Travel Plan

The travel plan outlines a set of objectives & initiatives to reduce car/taxi journeys by the school- which should be welcomed.

However, it is worth noting that any significant reductions from these initiatives are expected to take 5 years. It is also with noting that, out of the 35 initiatives listed to meet these objectives, 32 have their completion date listed as either "ongoing or TBC". This leads me to believe that these initiatives are simply pipe dreams or lip service to the planning authority

The local traffic chaos is happening now and will be made worse by these expansion plans. Local residents should not have to wait 5 years for mitigating initiatives to take effect.

Any planning permission for expansion of this school, should be only given on the explicit condition that most of these initiatives are in effect BEFORE that expansion happens

)

[d.b]

Nimby squad, assemble!

In all seriousness, this is a very minor change and I see no serious reason why you should object other than the obvious one of not wanting building work going on near your house. A handful of extra children at the junior school is not going to have any measurable effect on air quality. BTW I live right by the school and have never had a problem with it, they operate just the same as any other school.

[redpost]

They don't operate the same as any other school though do they, most state school places are allocated by distance allowing children to walk and cycle to school.

Private school parents are much wealthier than average, live much further away because of selection - and consequently much more likely to drive (or have nanny drive) kids to school long distances in a heavy SUV.

[JEG1]

redpost Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They don't operate the same as any other school

> though do they, most state school places are

> allocated by distance allowing children to walk

> and cycle to school.

>

> Private school parents are much wealthier than

> average, live much further away because of

> selection - and consequently much more likely to

> drive (or have nanny drive) kids to school long

> distances in a heavy SUV.

My children go to a local state primary and loads of the parents drive their kids to and from school. My son nearly got knocked over by one.

[DadOf4]

d.b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nimby squad, assemble!

>

> In all seriousness, this is a very minor change

> and I see no serious reason why you should object

> other than the obvious one of not wanting building

> work going on near your house. A handful of extra

> children at the junior school is not going to have

> any measurable effect on air quality. BTW I live

> right by the school and have never had a problem

> with it, they operate just the same as any other

> school.

Well, Alleyn's acknowledge that they have a problem with transport- hence the proposed 35 different initiatives to reduce car travel - its just I have doubts about their intention to follow through on those initiatives.

They are also worried about air quality enough to commission a study - its just I have serious doubts about the conclusions of that study

[WelshRich]

Travel Plans and Air Quality Assessments are both, amongst many many others, standard requirements for planning applications these days across London boroughs. All part of being accountable and open to scrutiny. Not to submit them would be open to alternative criticisms

[goldilocks]

This is all true - its not the inclusion of them that is disingenuous - more some of the content! The air quality monitors chosen for the report ignore the closest monitors and cherry pick non comparable and further away data points.

The travel plan is interesting - but I note that all the mitigation plans are future pipe dreams rather than actually in place. Unless I've missed the huge crocodile of kids doing park and stride options from Sainsburys..... (no - thought not!)