Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Aha, that's the one! Thank you. I hadn't understood that there are various planning subcommittes as well as the main committee - but I suppose that makes sense in a borough as big as Southwark!


Highlights: planning officer recommends approval. Space for 195 kids. 45 full time jobs and 5 part time. 0700-1900 Monday to Friday. Competition with existing businesses ike next door is not a relevant planning consideration.


Site empty for some years, last used as members drinking club, with large former bowling green at the back. (I didn't realise this - good that the kids will have outdoor space). Sufficient space for onstreet parking and servicing. Transport plan implemented in response to first consultation.


Heritage acceptable, Grade 2 listed. No comments from Victorian Society or English Heritage. Basement for staff use only (unlike next door which has kids in basement iirc?).


120 letters of objection received inc about transport but also overdevelopment and "harmful noise" of kids playing in the play area. (This last one seems like impossibly mean NIMBYism, and the letter writer should have a word with themselves). Report drily notes that with adequate supervision there should not be significant events of children laughing or shouting, and overall noise impacg is insignificant.


12 letters in support.


Transport obviously the big one. Suggested that 11% of kids and 17% of staff would arrive by car, and that surrounding streets have sufficient parking to absorb that additional traffic at pickup and drop-off. Developer to build more cycle storage, have transport plan, and refurbish crossing on EDG.

Thanks for the summary - I hope it goes ahead and that the transport plan proves itself. I like the fact that a semi-dilapidated but reasonably attractive older building is being used again, as well as all those jobs.
I?m curious. The demand for nursery places in ED is off the charts which is going to have to be met somehow, some day. There are local nurseries with literally hundreds on their waiting lists. Exactly where would this vital provision go if not here? The nursery we used was very successful in persuading people not to use their cars, and that was well before the nightmare of road closures happened. There is no way anyone is going to want to drive to this location at drop off and pick up times unless forced at gunpoint so I genuinely cannot see what the issue is.
They will drive - they are driving even now in the chaos of ED Grove. Sitting in an air-conditioned car listening to your fav CD...dry if it is raining and cool in a heat wave. Only residents, pedestrians and cyclist suffer.

I have no doubt it has a no drive policy, in the same way JAGS and Alleyns have and yet - they drive.


They park in no parking zones, on the pavement and even let the kids out in the road - I'm constantly amazed. Meanwhile the pavement is a cycle lane - with parents and kids on cycles and scooters. Southwark Council really need to get a grip of the situation.

Mmmmh that's the point the nursery has a 'no drive policy' in the same way JAGs and Alleyn's has a 'no drive policy' - in that neither has - they can't stop parents from driving they can only encourage.


You can interpret any way you want. They may promise staggered arrival and to minimise idling vehicles, but pretty soon the Council will lose interest and promises can be forgotten. I actually don't object to the building being a nursery, there is a need in ED - but I have no doubt it will lead to extra traffic on an already busy road.

JAGS and Alleyns don't have no-drive policies. They encourage, but that's within a context of openly attracting pupils from a wide catchment area. They run school buses but clearly there are many that choose to drive. And I agree that the behaviour of some of those is pretty poor in the way you describe.


The nursery won't be operating with the same wide catchment as has been discussed before. And as a new enterprise, could take a tougher approach with their new customers; eg they would have the home address and could have agreement on an acceptable travel plan before accepting new joiners.


There's nowhere to park near there anyway.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Mmmmh that's the point the nursery has a 'no drive

> policy' in the same way JAGs and Alleyn's has a

> 'no drive policy' - in that neither has


Pretty vapid point when JAGS and Alleyns don't have "no drive policies", and neither does the new nursery. Reading the document would clear up your (evident) confusion.

As I understand it there is high demand for nursery places locally. So a new nursery should probably be welcomed.


People will make choices about how to get there and I would hope many will choose not to drive. But ultimately, a business can't dictate those choices. The council / planners can seek to influence them however by making it more expensive / less convenient to drive, and / or by making walking or cycling more appealing.


It's noticeable that some of the same voices that support opening up the quieter walking routes that link people travelling to this nursery (Elsie, Derwent, Melbourne) to traffic, also want to limit the number of people who will end up driving to the nursery.


It seems fairly obvious that making it both less pleasant and safe to walk / cycle to, and more easy to drive to, won't result in fewer cars pulling up outside the nursery.

Yes, there currently is high demand.


oimissus Wrote:

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

> Is there a high demand? The birth rate is dropping

> and previously oversubscribed schools are

> advertising vacancies.

There is continued high demand for (good) childcare in this area. This provider is at the expensive end of the market but looks to have great provision. Its exactly what we would have wanted when we had small children and would have meant that we wouldn't have had to travel to W Dulwich every day such was the scarcity of the provision locally.
Just because there are too many school places doesn?t mean there are too many nursery places?. When I put my now two year old down for a nursery place (when I was 3 months pregnant), we only managed to get a place because she had an older brother at the nursery. So based on my own experience, there was a shortage a couple of years ago (most nurseries never even bothered coming back to me). This situation could have changed due to COVID but we?d need to see up to date data to make that judgement.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...