Stop mega-nursery creating further traffic misery on East Dulwich Grove

[Jaysaw]

An application to create one of the largest nurseries in London on East Dulwich Grove (195 children and 55 staff) is about to be approved by the planning officer.

A case can certainly be made for more nursery provision in the area - the issue is whether it is appropriate on this site specifically. It is shocking that, even though air quality and traffic congestion on EDG is already the subject of a major campaign by local residents, this application apparently does not even warrant consideration by the Southwark planning committee.

If you think that this mega-nursery is the last thing EDG needs, you can object here:

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?previousCaseType=Property&keyVal=QKD0P6KBJOO00&previousCaseNumber=PP11WQ00DT02J&previousCaseUprn=200003443806&activeTab=summary&previousKeyVal=PP11WQ00DT02K

Hopefully the link works, but if not you can search 33 East Dulwich Grove on the planning register or Planning application No. 20/AP/3461. The deadline is 9th August. Thank you for reading.

[Metallic]

With the number of objections being so high, Cllr McCash and his colleagues should ensure this is called in.

[Jaysaw]

Metallic - I had thought the same but apparently the chairman of the planning committee is of the view that this doesn?t warrant committee level scrutiny and can be decided by the individual officer. Hopefully they might reconsider if enough people keep objecting. It affects so many local residents (immediate neighbours, residents on EDG and all the incumbent nurseries in the area, particularly one directly next door).

[fishbiscuits]

I seem to recall from my kid's nursery days that almost everyone travelled on foot.

Are these traffic/parking concerns really justified?

[vmdgg]

I doubt the parking concerns are justified. If East Dulwich Grove truly is the car park that people on this forum claim it is, are local parents really going to subject themselves to traffic misery instead of just walking to the creche? After all the site is smack in the middle of a dense residential area. Walking will be the quickest for anybody local.

It is depressing to read the objections against the planning application. (Most?) people would rather that the building remain derelict with rubbish piling up outside instead of it being cleaned up and repurposed as a very decent looking creche.

The argument that there is an existing creche next door seems to be pretty nonsensical. Should we have prevented Yard Sale from opening next door to Franca Manca and 500 Degrees? Or should we close M&S because there is a Co-Op down the street?

I haven't yet heard any parents complain that there are too many creche places in ED and it is even rarer to hear people complain that childcare is too cheap. A new creche (& the increased competition) should be welcomed by everybody except those with the most outrageous NIMBY tendencies.

[Angelina]

I totally agree with the objections. The building was left to the community and it should be used as such.

There are so many very valid points against it.

Traffic is a hot topic anyway with pollution and road closures - it is a great and optimistic view to think that people would walk - they don't walk to school so why be that naive?

It's ridiculous to say that any use is better than no use. You should be interested in what it is used for.

[DuncanW]

I didn't know it had been left to the community - could you shed any light on that?

It's 500M from the train station, I think a lot of people would drop their kids and walk on to get the train to work.

[vmdgg]

But the building has not been left to the community. It is derelict and not open to the public. Last I saw it has rubbish and general debris piled up outside and it is occupied by live in guardians for security. Have I missed something?

It seems that the option before the council is to allow a proven business (it is https://nfamilyclub.com right?) to tastefully renovate the building and repurpose it as a creche which would be a valuable amenity for families in the area. Or, the building can remain derelict and the rubbish pile will grow and the building will continue to decay.

Most comments read to me as NIMBY objections thinly disguised as concerns about air pollution, traffic etc. etc. The objections raised by the existing creche are understandable, but the profit margin of the existing creche is not really a planning matter.

[alice]

Who owns the building?

[vmdgg]

According to the land registry it was sold in March 2020, presumably to the company behind the planning application to open a new creche.

Any talk about the building remaining a community centre is fantasy, unless people really believe that the council is going to buy it (cost was ?3.75M) and renovate it.

I would rather have a company with deep pockets repair the building and bring it back into productive use, instead of letting it to rot just to appease the parking concerns of the vocal NIMBYs.

[northernmonkey]

It is a privately held building and i suspect that if it doesn't become a nursery the next step is likely to be turning the whole thing into flats!

I'd much rather that it became a community theatre and arts space but no one has the funding for something like that, so a nursery isn't terrible. The provider looks good, they seem to do more than the core nursery bit and actually do community events too and there is a dearth of quality childcare in the area - as evidenced by the amount of people who drag their kids over to West Dulwich to Nellys nursery etc.

[Nigello]

I agree with the view that renovating an old building and making it of use to a wider number of people is a good idea, not least because it provides employment and adds to the area, rather than detracting from it, which in its current state, it is doing.

[Eggybread]

Can I ask please which building it is and where it is on the Grove? Thanks

[northernmonkey]

Its the old constitutional club building virtually opposite Elsie Road

[first mate]

Yes, but the issue of traffic build up is relevant. If, as seems, this is a big business I hardly think users will be entirely local and arriving only on foot and bicycle. Trains are being cut and buses held up by traffic build up on main roads partly through LTNs. With a large school and medical centre only yards away, I understand resident concerns.

Plus, if there is such a huge demand for nursery schools in the area why do the smaller nurseries feel threatened?

[EDulwich_4]

It seems that most of the objections to this planning application stem from the existing nursery next door, which seems to have managed to successfully galvanise the parents into posting objections. The irony of this is that most of the complaints put forward by the existing nursery could be said about it.

I agree with those saying that it would be lovely if this space could be used for the community, but it has been purchased privately and therefore has about the same prospects of being used as a community space as the Marks and Spencers does. I suspect it may be a better use of peoples' time to encourage the council to impose conditions on the approval, requiring cycle lanes, improvements to the footpaths etc., rather than objecting to the proposal outright.

[redpost]

It would be good if there was some legal provision for an "active travel only" clause in planning permission, unfortunately I don't think this can be done.

[DuncanW]

There's no way of knowing exactly how all their future customers will travel to and from.

But there are nurseries everywhere (even in that street), so not sure why someone would travel from out of area to take their kids to that one.

The other nurseries may well legitimately feel their business would be threatened by a new competitor. As much as I wouldn't wish any other business to suffer, that's how a free market operates, and isn't grounds to deny planning consent, is it?

[first mate]

And that "no way of knowing" is part of the problem. It will be argued, as you have done, that clients will be local, so no problem. Is there really local demand for a super-creche? My guess, and it is as much a guess as yours, is that a significant proportion will be users out of area or far enough to drop off in the car.

[vmdgg]

Any & all development can be opposed with this "there might be more traffic" line of thinking.

It seems that the creche is at least making an effort by intending to make parents sign a no-car pledge.

I doubt this can be enforced by law, but all surrounding streets are permit parking and there is nowhere to pull in outside so probably it will be self enforcing. For example I do not see anybody complaining about car drop offs at the existing creche, why would this new one be any different?

In all likelihood, because this looks like an expensive creche, the parents will be dropping their kids off before jumping the train into the City, the Wharf or West End. They will be not be driving to work and so unlikely to be driving to the creche to drop off their kids as there is nowhere to park in this area due to permit parking.

[Nigello]

I am minded to follow vmdgg's train of thought, though am happy to be shown to be wrong/partly wrong once it gets up and running. The no-car pledge is certainly promising though relies on people's sense of honesty, which may be lacking on a cold and wet November morning!

[fishbiscuits]

While some parents may try to drive there, park nearby, and get the train into work... the reality is that parking spaces are so hard to find round there, I think for most people it will ultimately be more hassle than it's worth and they'll end up on foot.

As Duncan says, there are nurseries all over London, they are overwhelmingly local businesses. People are not going to be travelling from far and wide. Nurseries all seem to have some provision for leaving buggies/bikes/scooters/etc.

[rachp]

My child attended the nursery next door when it first opened. At the beginning, I think there were quite a few kids who lived further away as a new nursery will have places and this is very rare, so people will come from some distance to use it. Over time, when you have to put kids down when you first get pregnant (reality around here), most are likely to be from nearby and therefore able to walk etc, especially when parking is difficult.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

EDulwich_4 Wrote:

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

> It seems that most of the objections to this

> planning application stem from the existing

> nursery next door, which seems to have managed to

> successfully galvanise the parents into posting

> objections.

Is this true or is it just neighbourhood gossip?

[northernmonkey]

They have leafleted the area and have posters up - I can't imagine its all the opposition, but it will be a significant proportion.