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

[ed_pete]

And what about the 55 staff ?

Nursey education is not the best paid of profession's and East Dulwich and environs is not a cheap place to live so you can assume they would need to commute from further away. I wonder how many will drive and where will they park. Plenty of non-CPZ spaces on Melbourne Grove (south).

[northernmonkey]

Some will undoubtedly drive. I doubt there are 55 spaces on Melbourne Grove South - whenever i walk along it its pretty fully parked up. Also given that a lot of the concern was around increasing traffic on East Dulwich Grove, as long as the filters remain, then they won't be travelling along EDG from the most part.

Others will use public transport. Nursery workers aren't well paid, running a car is expensive.

[rachp]

Just seen a post on ED mums (Facebook) who can?t get a nursery place and has been told waitlists for the nurseries she has tried have at least 24 month waitlists. So it would seem that the shortage of childcare in the area has resumed business as usual status.

[Jim1234]

I live near ED Grove. We just had a baby. Can't get a nursery place nearby at all. We don't own a car.

We work from home 50% of the time but absolutely cannot work and look after a child at the same time.

Please don't try to block this - we desperately need the extra nursery capacity.

[alex_b]

Even if parents are working from home a couple of days a week this doesn?t reduce demand for nursery places. You can?t really work and look after a three year old at the same time (as the pandemic showed). Perhaps the pandemic has encouraged a bit more part time working but I don?t believe the multi-year waitlists have evaporated like is being claimed.

[northernmonkey]

They really haven't - the nursery next door has (understandably) run a huge campaign against this, and i do have sympathy with their position. But they need to be cheaper than the new one and this will be their differentiator.

This thread is 'stop mega nursery creating further traffic misery on East Dulwich Grove', but as has been shown - unlike the Health Centre which has been allowed to have lots of parking and thus contribute significantly to congestion on East Dulwich Grove, the nursery will have no on site parking, is situated in a CPZ so no drop off options available (again -its a nursery, you have to go in with them, you can't just kick them out in the road. There will undoubtedly be some staff who drive, but hopefully they will be discouraged by wider measures like traffic filters and ULEZ.

[heartblock]

I would love to be supportive of any new nursery, but with the risk of ED Grove becoming even more of a nightmare on top of the horrendous idling standstill traffic today, I will object. If the LTNs all go, I will support.

[ed_pete]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

... but as has

> been shown - unlike the Health Centre which has

> been allowed to have lots of parking and thus

> contribute significantly to congestion on East

> Dulwich Grove,...

Really ? Have you counted the occupied car parking spaces at the Health Centre ? Maybe 20 or so. You can stand on EDG pretty much anytime during the day and count 20 cars in a minute or two, so "contribute significantly" seems a little OTT to me.

[first mate]

It would be interesting to know if long-term there is to be an agreement with the Charter for staff members to use the parking spaces. If there is really no use or anticipated use for them then perhaps they should be opened up for local use?

[rachp]

I think the existing nursery?s fear set in when they we?re losing customers during the height of the pandemic and were under capacity. They are also going to be worried about increased pollution (as am I) so there would need to be a watertight governance around the no car policy. But I do think this is possible if the council and new nursery work together on this.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> They really haven't - the nursery next door has

> (understandably) run a huge campaign against this,

> and i do have sympathy with their position. But

> they need to be cheaper than the new one and this

> will be their differentiator.

>

> This thread is 'stop mega nursery creating further

> traffic misery on East Dulwich Grove', but as has

> been shown - unlike the Health Centre which has

> been allowed to have lots of parking and thus

> contribute significantly to congestion on East

> Dulwich Grove, the nursery will have no on site

> parking, is situated in a CPZ so no drop off

> options available (again -its a nursery, you have

> to go in with them, you can't just kick them out

> in the road. There will undoubtedly be some staff

> who drive, but hopefully they will be discouraged

> by wider measures like traffic filters and ULEZ.

[DuncanW]

What mechanism can you use to enforce a no-car policy with paying customers both in terms of how it would be policed and issuing sanctions to rule-breakers?

I doubt it would create much extra traffic for the reasons already stated, but think it would be tough to enforce such a policy.

[rachp]

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this type of thing but I'm pretty sure there are mechanisms that can be used if the will is there, especially if the nursery's licence to operate depends on it. For example, my son was recently at a holiday club where we were told in no uncertain terms that if our children were found to have any form of nuts in the lunch box, we would automatically be cancelled from the club.

And given that we don't think there would be a lot of cases, I think it could be contained to a level where it would not make a significant impact to traffic levels, as even the few who would otherwise defy the rules and drive would be put off by the prospect of losing their nursery place or receiving a parking fine (which would not be difficult for the council to police given the restricted window within which it is likely to happen).

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

The idea of parents being contractually bound not to drive their kids in is one that ought to be imposed on the many private schools around here next time any of them wants planning permission to build more.

[northernmonkey]

I'm not sure really whether there is anything they can do, but on the other hand opening up and having a no car policy that you promote from the outset really sets the tone. It will help people assess whether they can get to the nursery without relying on a car.

In reality some will still drive, especially given the lack of the CPZ south of East Dulwich Grove, but I think that if the expectation from people selecting the nursery is that they won't drive it will help. It is very near the station so its feasible for the majority not to drive.

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> What mechanism can you use to enforce a no-car

> policy with paying customers both in terms of how

> it would be policed and issuing sanctions to

> rule-breakers?

>

> I doubt it would create much extra traffic for the

> reasons already stated, but think it would be

> tough to enforce such a policy.

[first mate]

Would agree with both of you. The driving children to school issue, when a major rationale for LTNs is to 'save children's lungs', is almost paradoxical.

[bodsier]

shame local people couldnt have purchased it and kept it and either run a neighbourhood social club.. good for the neighbourhood....could even have run a neighbourhood hire scheme.....or better still a youth centre....for the teenagers that have nowhere to go....I'm not going to look at this after writing.....I can only imagine the backlash....

[northernmonkey]

I agree all those things would have been great and it?s a shame it?s not in a position to be any of them and any would have been a really good use of the building. Sadly now it?s sold into private ownership though that ship has sailed so it?s going to be a commercial venture. It would have been so lovely if it could have been the east dulwich equivalent of bell house but it?s not to be

[DuncanW]

Who was the previous owner...?

[alice]

Bell house?!! No way

[northernmonkey]

It was once the constitutional club- someone on here will know the history. In recent years though it?s been largely underused and badly maintained- freezing cold and poor facilities.

[bodsier]

How can the oommunity get first hand information on property that is going up for sale or better still is derelict?

[ArchieCarlos]

True, but the reaction would be no different: most neighbours would complain about it under various pretences.

See for example the special needs school being built by the council next to my house (Bellenden), on the site of a recently-closed primary school. At least a dozen people found pretexts to oppose the development. Of course they claim to be in favour of better facilities for special needs kids - just not in their backyards!

My experience is the people who complain about "more car traffic" seem to be car owners who don't want more traffic/trouble parking for themselves. Like 2nd generation immigrants who are somehow super anti-immigration (Priti Patel)

[legalalien]

I would just say that loads of people have great ideas about how local people can sort these sites out and run stuff, but when push comes to shove it?s only a very, very small minority of folk who are willing to put in the hard yards rather than suggest what could / should be done. If anyone out there has an interest in volunteering to help with any of a variety of community sports grounds out there, by all means message me and I can put you in touch with relevant people. Advance warning - these things are largely a thankless task.

bodsier Wrote:

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

> shame local people couldnt have purchased it and

> kept it and either run a neighbourhood social

> club.. good for the neighbourhood....could even

> have run a neighbourhood hire scheme.....or better

> still a youth centre....for the teenagers that

> have nowhere to go....I'm not going to look at

> this after writing.....I can only imagine the

> backlash....

[legalalien]

Haven?t read it yet but here?s the link to the council report on the nursery planning application that is going to planning committee on Tuesday next week, for those interested.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102798/Report.pdf

46 full time staff - it is quite big.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Sorry, that link isn't working (for me at least), and it looks like the Planning Committee's next meeting is 30 Nov, for which the agenda hasn't been set. 🤔 Am I looking in the wrong place? (Probably)

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=119