Thanks Sophie, I think the message about the school street is out there and EB have a good newsletter so the 50% of parents who are using the TA entrance will find out.
I think the message that is not out there is the One-Way Street I think the letter to residents was not clear and it has just been copied and pasted to the CommonPlace website. Anybody looking sees the words Timed Closure and then sees some times and will assume it it is between certain times. It doesn’t convey the message that the top half is permanently closed to cars who want to travel up to Kirkdale. Sorry to sound like a broken record but it is unclear.
Are there any plans to put in signposting at the bottom of Thorpewood to let people know that it is no longer a through road, whatever the usual is Residents Access Only or No Through Road?
@SophieDavis, Any updates on these points which you said you would raise on the 5th of November.
Can you also add to these points, how you can reduce the impact of traffic/pollution displaced to Holy Trinity as it is outside the school street while being on the same road as the school street? I know the answer has been given that it is up to the school to act and it doesn’t have the money but does the council not have some duty of care if it moves pollution from one school to another?
Firstly I’d like to say that I have lived in the area for 54 years. Living in Round Hill and using a vehicle for work, this is going to make my working day longer. A small inconvenience if it were to make the street safer for children going to school, but this is clearly not the case.
Most of the main points are covered in the thread - Why not Holy Trinity (ridiculous to say the entrance is on Dartmouth rd and number of students), why not timed (as originally indicated). This is really going to inconvenience me every working day, and I am willing to fight this with likeminded residents. I will now, instead of passing one school (Eliot Bank) have to pass two schools (Holy Trinity and Kelvin Grove) and wait in traffic heading up Kirkdale (which in early morning can be very heavy). How can that be beneficial?
The whole issue outside Eliot Bank is caused by parents double parking dropping children off (very dangerous). Thanks to them I am being punished. I would have had to accept if it was timed, but never to be able to turn left is just a step too far.
And encouraging kids to cycle to school - well we should be getting some Olympic champions in a few years time! What 7 year old can negotiate Thorpewood Avenue? Or Kirkdale? Or Sydenham Hill?
The pole and signage that’s been installed on the pavement at the bottom of our drive means we can’t reverse on. My husband had to drive on forwards today and that was hard enough a manoeuvre with no traffic and nothing parked opposite. We can’t imagine how we will be able to safely manoeuvre to reverse off onto Kirkdale, into traffic, especially with the traffic increase this divisive decision will cause here.
It’s a quite legal dropped kerb that’s always worked well and was clearly installed when the house was built. Quite apart from Lewisham’s complete disregard for road safety, this is a Conservstion Area and there’s a grass verge just a few metres away which already has a pole with school signage on it to which this could easily have been added. It would have been safer and cheaper for council tax payers too.
What evidence do I need having lived in the area all my life (48 years in Round Hill, 3 years in Derby Hill and the rest in SE23) that this is yes, inconvenient for me. It will create more emissions from traffic leaving Round Hill FACT. Any traffic leaving Round Hill will go past two schools to get to Sydenham hill FACT. No resident of Round Hill will use Dartmouth Road to get to the south circular (to head towards central London) as it moves a lot slower. This information is gained from experience living in the area, not ‘even without evidence’.
What’s happened here is that allowing children to go to Eliot Bank from a wide area (?) and drop their children by car has caused the road to be altered. I drive up Thorpewood Avenue and have parents just stop on the corner with no regard for the danger of their children. Yet I and others (especially Round Hill) pay the penalty by being effectively penned in with one exit. If Eliot Bank is over subscribed and such a popular school, surely it should be filled by local children? Holy Trinity is less popular, so perhaps should be the school that needs help with dropping off by car? Tackle the issue at source (ie those parents dropping by car) not by making the traffic worse for the majority of local residents. I remember seeing a camera car outside the school on a number of occasions. Surely a camera installed permanently would have been cheaper in tackling these irresponsible parents?
For the record I am a London Taxi Driver. I have a contract with a company in central London where I need to get a short notice. It already takes me an hour to do 8 miles in the morning, and this will increase by at least 10 minutes. That’s around an hour a week, and something I would have accepted for a timed period to make it safe for children.
One thing I predict is that, not evidence based as yet, it will be a nightmare getting out onto Dartmouth Rd. This often gets backed up so any traffic turning left from Thorpewood Avenue will be waiting for the lights at the junction with London Road to change! Traffic will increase on Derby Hill and Derby Hill crescent (which in places is impassable by two vehicles). I hope I’m wrong. If my job is impacted, and I potentially lose the contract if delayed, I will be taking this further. How, I don’t know, but this is the biggest change affecting local traffic that has occurred in my 54years.
The one way street will cost local residents up to £100 extra a year.
It will lengthen the journey for local residents by 1Km.
It will increase pollution in the local area by an extra million grams of CO2.
The school street actively discriminates against Holy Trinity by doubling the pollution going past it.
I have illustrated below the distance of classrooms in both Holy Trinity and Eliot Bank to Thorpewood Avenue. HT classrooms are 5 metres from the road while EB classrooms are 58 metres from the road.
The council proposes to double the pollution for kids sitting in classrooms 5 metres from the road for the benefit of kids sitting in classrooms 58 metres from the road. I don’t think we need the expertise of council officers to say that doesn’t sound fair or right.
Not forgetting Kelvin Grove, with its playground at the front of the school on Kirkdale. I don’t have Paul’s skills to work these really excellent maps and figures, but I fear Kelvin Grove is being forgotten in all this and that Thorpewood Avenue will be made a complete school street in order to silence a more articulate lobby and Kelvin Grove’s children will be sacrificed. Please, please don’t let that happen.
I didn’t receive any response to my request for Eliot Bank’s Travel Plan, by the way. There’s a certain smugness in that lack of openness I feel.
What about all those vehicles that cannot cut through Thorpewood Avenue from East to West so will avoid that road? Has that factored into your equations into the pollution impact on these schools? I guess not.
What about the parents who decide to get PT or walk with their kids to Eliot Bank now they can’t park outside the school gate?
If you want to improve air quality around Holy Trinity and Eliot Bank, make a real concerted effort to use your car less and encourage your neighbours to do the same.
Isn’t there a short-term problem here that with an aim of reducing the number of shorter journeys by making driving unpleasant / impractical effectively through manufacturing conditions for congestion (albeit on fewer roads), the actions of the council will increase pollution?
I agree with the aims of those trying to make the air cleaner, but I just don’t think it’s something that can effectively be done by borough action alone, particularly where we have the South Circ as such a major factor / impact on all local traffic conditions.
What is more important - safety of dropping children outside the school (which has been evident to be very low on some parents priorities) or air quality around the school and the environment?
I have invested in a £65,000 Electric London Taxi. I’m doing my bit. My reward is now to be sent around the block, at the busiest time of the day, when just trying to get to work.
Some people need encouragement not to use their cars. That helps me in my job and also the environment. But this method of creating problems, and punishing those who’s vehicles are essential for work and the economy in order to change habits, is not the way to do it.
Has any thought been considered for those less able ? If, for example, I need to take my 86 year old mum (who also lives in Round Hill) to a hospital appointment at Kings College (a pretty regular occurrence) then the new route will create her an issue.
What if a disabled person needs to be dropped during the restricted hours? Is there provision for that?
To you and your esteemed experts the new scheme on paper may seem to work. But I assure you the problems at the bottom of Thorpewood Avenue will be real, and the inconvenience to local residents extremely under estimated.
Has anyone seen Conways around this week? Lewisham Highways Department tell me they’ve shut down for Christmas. It’s only Tues 22nd! It’s extraordinary if no one is around now to take care of highway safety matters until the new year.
I have factored into account the small number of vehicles that will avoid the road as a cut through. Unfortunately in most cases, cars are destined for this area for one reason or another rather than rat-running, they will just turn around and use the single exit past the Holy Trinity kids in their classrooms 5 metres away from the road.
Local residents will have to do a 1km extra detour which will cost them up to £100 extra a year and add extra pollution to the area while going past the classrooms of kids who are sitting 5 metres away from the road and past Kelvin Grove as well.
I think you seriously underestimate the intelligence of the parents who have not been persuaded by the green message. You seriously think that given a choice between parking at the school gates or parking 150 metres below the school gates, they will opt not to drive. Most will opt to drive and park a little bit further away and turn around and drive past the kids in their classrooms 5 metres away from the road.
Most local residents agree with the idea of a timed school street that includes all the children going to school on the street.
Most local residents don’t agree with the imposition of a 24/7 one way street that puts a £100 tax on them and adds extra pollution to the neighbouring streets and schools.
I think you should make a concerted effort to improve your scheme so that it works as a school street for all children on the road including both schools and doesn’t penalise the majority of local residents while adding extra pollution to the area.
@EmmaJ I am still following up with officers on the points I mentioned previously. I will update as soon as possible (although likely in the NY as I am now taking a break over Christmas).
I would be very interested to know what proportion of the children attending Elliott Bank actually live within its stated catchment area and are therefore able to walk or PT with their parents. I suspect it is quite low compared to neighbouring schools as I know of one family that continue to bring their children to EB having moved to West Wycombe, another who “borrowed” a family member’s house until their children were accepted and then moved back to their own house 2 miles away and yet another who rented a nearby flat for the address but had a family house in Chislehurst.
That’s just the instances I have personal knowledge of so I suspect there are many, many more such stories and I very much doubt any of them will forsake their cars.
I have heard stories of people knocking on front doors and offering to pay the Council Tax for a year to be registered in order to get their children in the local school.
When I attended primary school pupils went to the nearest primary school.
There was not much chance of differentiating between schools until the league tables were introduced.
It makes more sense to me to abolish the league tables. I believe this would bring an end to parents travelling miles to the school of their choice.
When I attended primary school pupils went to the nearest primary school.
Most people start out like that (with the exception of the ‘cheaters’ you mention), but then moving for a secondary school is common, or just moving because of a job change or maybe to a different flat or house as a family grows or whatever. Add in a second child, and things get more complex again.
Absolutely. The school is over subscribed - so should be full of LOCAL children. But guess what - some will do anything to get their children in and travel a fair distance. Understandable some will say, but it still has created the issue. Holy Trinity (I attended between 1971-76) will have people travelling from further away.
My house is on Kirkdale and roughly equidistant between Eliot Bank and Kelvin Grove schools. Huge numbers of small children walk past my house every day. That’s almost the entire length of upper Kirkdale. Quite apart from the road safety issues and the lack of social distancing, those little children will be exposed to vastly increased levels of air pollution when they return to school in January to find Kirkdale choc a bloc with extra traffic. That’s a long walk at child height and child speed.
