As you know, I am in the Coordinators Group for the FH Assembly. I missed a meeting, because my mother was ill. At the next meeting your Thorpewood Ave working group was mentioned. You promised faithfully that nothing would happen without a full consultation in the neighbourhood- including Kirkdale. I was told also that there was no consensus in the working group as to what was wanted - some wanted residents only parking, some a school street, there was no agreement on the sort of hours when a CPZ would operate.
What studies/evidence have you collated? Who were the officers who reached this conclusion and who in the neighbourhood did they consult?
Have you personally been to Kirkdale during a normal morning school run? Have you personally seen the cross traffic between the flow to Eliot Bank in one direction and Kelvin Grove in the other?
I hope so Leo and I really hope no child is hurt on your watch as a result of this ill conceived decision.
I think there is a difference between discussion and being given a plan created in secret to comment on. No consultation, just we are putting this in in 5 weeks.
I would agree with Mary that all discussions in the past were about the whole of Thorpewood Avenue becoming a school street/CPZ/something else which ended without consensus.
I think you seem to have answered my comment from earlier with this response
It seems that you can spend loads of money to get air quality for some but not the less well off but then I read it further.
This seems to say you are doing this because the residents have complained about congestion.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with that but be honest when you contact the other affected residents and don’t say " The primary objective of this programmed is therefore to help pupils and parents to socially distance at the school gates and to create a safer environment for travel to school on foot and by bicycle, be implementing a short closure at school drop off and pick up times.
I think if your primary objective is social distancing then Holy Trinity has a greater need but if your main objective is to keep the people who have complained happy then the upper half project makes more sense but be honest.
Are you going to allow any limited consultation on this with other residents who are directly affected?
You are dividing a road, do the residents of the lower half of Thorpewood get any say?
Do residents of Radlet and Featherstone where a lot of drop offs will now occur get any say?
Do the children and parents of Holy Trinity get a proper explanation rather than we have spent all the money on Eliot Bank kids?
There are many inaccuracies in the the previous posts about the past history of Thorpewood Ave parking issues. I have been involved from the beginning with the consultation on a possible CPZ. The results of this consultation was that the bottom of Thorpewood Ave voted for the CPZ but the top of the road voted for no restrictions. In the Consultation report it was noted that there was a significant problem with all day & Forest Hill Pools parking that should be further investigated. Leo Gibbons knocked on a few doors when he was elected as a councillor asking for any issues he could help with & parking was the main concern of residents at the bottom end of Thorpewood. It then was discussed at the Forest Hill Assemblies. A working group was formed which was chaired by Leo Gibbins & at that time was mostly attended by members of households from the lower part of Thorpewood Ave. The residents from the upper part joined at later meetings. The parking issues at the bottom are as bad & certainly more complicated as they is are all day parkers, residences cars from other roads, Holy Trinity school car parkers (teachers & parents) & Forest Hill leisure centre parking who often block driveways. The congestion at Holy Trinity school is as bad & dangerous as at the top at Eliot Bank school. I have seen double & even triple parking by parents collecting children. Do Lewisham really think that Eliot Bank parents will not use cars to drop their children off all that will happen is that this will happen on Kirkdale or at the bottom of Thorpewood Ave & surrounding roads. Children walking to both Eliot Bank & Holy Trinity Schools will encounter more pollution from cars, how does this improve things for children or residents. I invested a lot of time & effort to help improve safety for all using Thorpewood Ave & especially school children & residents & feel Leo Gibbon & others in the council have just look after the needs of a few who have shouted the loudest. Holy Trinity school children are as entitled to protection from pollution & safety as Eliot Bank children & all residents on Thorpewood Ave should have been consulted about something that will have a major impact on their everyday life. Members of Lewisham Council always told the working group that any changes would have to take account of views of residents of surrounding roads Covid or no Covid.
Holy Trinity is a single form entry school while Eliot Bank is far larger as a three form entry school. That means far more children try and squeeze through the gates each day and far more vehicles arrive outside its gates every day.
To portray this as Holy Trinity School vs Eliot Bank School is a bad faith reading of the proposals and our motivations for the them, in particular as I’ve explained why we believed cameras on Dartmouth/Thorpewood were not suitable.
…
The goal of School Streets is to improve air quality around schools and other problems caused by congestion AND to encourage active travel and help social distancing.
Not to be pithy but better air quality for some is better than no better air quality for anyone. The accusation that healthy neighbourhood interventions are solely for the benefit of the well off is misplaced in general, but in this circumstance it certainly is. I’ve outlined above why the cameras are being placed where they are.
…
I will try and respond in full to points that people post on here later on. But in the mean time, think of this implementation period as a trial (as that’s what it is) with a consultation ongoing during the trial period.
Despite this being a trial which will assess feedback from residents, we have the same complaints I often hear again and again on this forum. There seems to be an attitude on here that we operate in some sort of direct democracy, in which the council makes all its decision by consultation (decisions to be made by and for the certain demographics that respond to LA consultations in the most part).
But we vote for elected representatives via the Mayor and councillors, who act on their manifesto commitments and judgement. We judge this approach to implanting School Streets as the correct way forward.
I do share some worries that parents at Eliot Bank will simply drive up to Radlet Avenue and congest the lower part of Thorpewood Avenue. I expressed this to officers but they said funds could not stretched for the 3 or 4 sets of cameras to lock off Derby Hill and the whole of Thorpewood Avenue.
I will go back to our Sustainable Transport lead and mention that residents have expressed concerns that the intervention might just knock the congestion further down the hill. But what I would also say is give it time, and see how it goes. If things aren’t working we can always try and amend the scheme.
I will also be speaking to the leadership of both schools to ask them what they’re doing to encourage their parents to walk and cycle their kids to school during Covid-19.
Personally I don’t think this sort of comment is particularly appropriate to direct at a single councillor. As Leo said:
Does anyone question why so many people need to drive their kids to school? How big are the catchment areas for these schools? Surely they can’t be more than a mile radius? And yes I appreciate that not everyone can walk but it does sound bad if people are triple parking.
Our local Councillors do have to be held account for their decisions. Leo took the lead on this. It was Leo’s working group. Leo promised - I emphasise promised face to face - that nothing would happen without the neighbourhood being consulted. Then, as there was no consensus, the whole thing seemed to have fizzled out.
Our Councillors may have been elected, but there is no viable opposition in Lewisham at the moment. They have no mandate to do this. But then around the same time, so were told at a Coordinators’ meeting that the Council’s so called Local Democracy Review was reporting to the Labour Group.
No one in this area needs to drive their children to school, unless that child has mobility issues or there are other extraordinary circumstances. The school must have a school travel plan. I’ll ask them for a copy. I would hope it has some requirement that they have some sanctions on parents that do make unnecessary motorised journeys to school. Shifting the parking chaos onto Kirkdale and other neighbouring streets doesn’t help anyone except those in the closed off streets.
Our Council must have real problems if they have to set about dividing communities in this way.
Hi @KimD and welcome. Was a report actually published? Where can we see it? I only know the name of one person who was a member of Leo’s working group and he is also a FH Assembly Coordinator. Obviously I’m not putting his name on here as he’s not an elected and therefore public figure. The report should be in the public domain though.
I think you have disappointed a lot of young parents with this inaccuracy. Eliot Bank is a two form entry not three as you have stated. HT has a capacity of 210 with EB having 420. EB’s site is probably 4 times the size of HT set back from the road and is an outstanding school with a feeling of space and a great reputation.
Eliot Bank has now divided the entry of children between the front entrance on Thorpewood Avenue and the back entrance on Eliot Bank. These entrances are a few hundred metres apart so the top of Thorpewood have probably half the traffic they had in the past.
Holy Trinity has two entrances about 50m apart, most drivers will still arrive via Thorpewood as it is most convenient for both. I don’t think you can say far more at present during Covid, pre-Covid it would have been more accurate but this measure is Covid related.
I think an easy way to test the theory of whether the cars will just move to the lower part of Thorpewood is just to ask the residents who live by the back entrance of EB. I think the most recent newsletter is asking them to stop parking in residents car parks.
I don’t think people see this as an EB vs HT or upper vs lower Thorpewood. I think all have equal entitlement to clean air and all should be treated equally. I don’t think it is right that you are seeking to displace pollution from one place that has high levels of traffic for 2 hours a day to another place that has high levels of traffic all day. I understand the cost argument but it shouldn’t be about making it a lot worse for some people.
You seem to be advocating benevolent dictatorship by local councillors who know best and should follow their approach as it is the correct way forward. I don’t think we residents elected you tell us the correct way without listening to us. I am grateful that in your second reply you have listened to our concerns.
Elliot Bank was 717.86m last year. Adamsrill was 7142.25m (source).
While I don’t doubt there are needless journeys, I wouldn’t like to make assumptions about parent’s individual circumstances and situations. Having more than one child in different schools (e.g. one in primary and one in secondary), or having moved for schools or work, or just needing to drop the kids and get to work are all reasons why people may end up driving.
Primary schools are a particular problem as the children are generally too young to make their own way to school on public transport or whatever.
It would indeed be interesting to see the ‘school travel plan’. If only ‘please consider not driving your kids to school if not absolutely necessary’ worked then school streets wouldn’t be implemented in the first place.
These are all good points, and to be clear I’m not suggesting everyone walks to school, it’s exactly the needless journeys that I’m talking about. Even small changes in behaviour can reduce congestion and pollution and risk of accidents around schools.
Well I did say no one needs to drive their children to school “unless that child has mobility issues or there are other extraordinary circumstances”.
@robin.orton has kindly sent me a copy of Lewisham’s letter. I shall ask Lewisham to circulate the letter to the neighbours who will inevitably be affected. It’s extraordinary to me that residents in that part of the street can still come and go as and when they choose - presumably so can their employees, which makes for an interesting time should any of the planning applications for that part of Thorpewood be approved.
Thanks too to @EmmaJ for the info on Eliot Bank School. From the school’s website I also learn that they now stagger the entry/exit times for different year groups.
I wonder if part of the reason for favouring Eliot Bank children (at least in the immediate vicinity of the school) over others is because it’s part of a Federation? Does that maybe give them more political clout?
Hi @marymck
I was in both the co-ordinating group and the Thorpewood Avenue working group.
Firstly, I couldn’t find a link to the 2015 CPZ consultation report. I can pm it to you but I had a look for the relevant details. There is a lot in there but the upshot was the council (this was before Leo’s time) through their measurement of traffic pressure on the road and local pressure concluded that the greater pressure was on the lower half but felt they couldn’t just have part of the road/area as a CPZ. They acknowledged though there was a need to do something.
This rumbled on for a while and at the assembly where we had the Meet the Mayor and question him session. I asked him what he was going to do to fulfil the council’s commitment. He asked that the Thorpewood Avenue Working Group be setup to look into it. Leo was appointed to head this up.
The working group wasn’t particularly well publicised and attendance was probably down to locals getting their neighbours to attend. It was open to all but the majority were Thorpewood Avenue residents with a representative of the local schools. I think the great thing was that it united the road and made people think about the road as being one with similar problems.
School Streets (School Pedestrian Zone SPZ) were seen as an option but only for the whole road. There was never any discussion of a school street for the bottom or the top. Unsurprisingly it would not have been acceptable in a group that was looking at Thorpewood as one road. People discussed the option and saw the complexity of the issues and the number of cameras. Many residents felt that a school street should only be brought in with a CPZ. We were told repeatedly by Leo that any proposal which we agreed on whether a CPZ or SPZ would need to get approval from the local area including Radlet, Derby Hill Crescent etc. I don’t think he mentioned Kirkdale but it sounds like you mentioned it to him.
There was a lot of concern about child safety and pollution but it was about the whole road and not just the top part. The same goes for schools, there was discussion about both schools but never singling out Eliot Bank for special treatment or feeling that because Holy Trinity was smaller, it deserved less attention.
I have had some contact from people from the working group, the people from the bottom are feeling betrayed and feel Leo is making a bad situation a lot worse.
The people from the top accept they got lucky and say they would be furious if it had gone the other way but say that Leo seems to have destroyed the consensus and offended a lot of people.
There is fear that the desire for a CPZ which has receded because of Covid might end up now happening because of the extra pollution and congestion which will now be concentrated below the Radlet Camera.
The Forest Hill CPZ Consultation Study 2016 & can be view if you google this & click on Forest Hill. The report is available in full. Sorry as I am new to this site I’m not sure how to show the link here.
On the number of cars dropping children & the catchment areas, families often move once there children have started at Eliot Bank to areas miles away but continue to have there children at Eliot Bank so travelling by cars are their only option. Eliot Bank is an outstanding school so competition for places is high. This point was brought up in the Thorpewood Ave Parking Working Group but never answered by Eliot Bank.
The encouragement for children to walk to school has been in operation at both schools for a few years now but had made little difference to the number of cars dropping & collecting children. I am not confident that journeys will reduce with this traffic system just move the drop off & collections to Kirkdale & Thorpewood Ave at Radlett Ave causing traffic chaos in the surrounding areas.
I’m not sure about the relevance of the discussion on the different in & outs schools are taking due to the Covid these will presumably revert back to one entrance once Covid restrictions are reduced. As I understand this road closure at school times is probably a long time change.
Thanks @BorderPaul for that really helpful and thorough summary.
The Meet the Mayor Assembly must have been the one I missed. It was probably at the next Coordinators meeting that the Thorpewood Ave working group was mentioned. If memory serves there was mention of another working group too for a different area. I think @cllrSophieDavis might have been leading that one, but I might be wrong.
The thing is a community is about more than just one street. I’ve expressed my concerns for upper Kirkdale and Kelvin Grove since I first heard mention of school streets or a CPZ. It’s chaos at the junction of Thorpewood and Kirkdale in the mornings when the school run coincides with the morning rush. During the day, upper Kirkdale remains a quiet road but it is the thoroughfare for the many schools in our area. Far more so than Thorpewood, as we have Kelvin Grove too.
Leo is aware of this.
Our Council seems determined to set street against street, when really we should be standing up to them and seeing they fulfil their duty of care to all.
It is not a benevolent dictatorship when we have elections every four years.
Our manifesto clearly stated: Work with parents and schools to protect our children from toxic air. All Lewisham children will be encouraged to walk, cycle and scoot to school away from main roads. We will provide interventions to protect our most polluted playgrounds and build on our anti-idling schools programme to reduce emissionsin the vicinity of our schools.
The executive has embraced School Street as an intervention, after some lobbying from me. Under new laws, we are able to put these interventions in place to support active travel for 18 months. These 18 months, or less, will act as a trial and consultation period, which seems absolutely reasonable to me.
In my memory, I had probably two complaints regarding parking/congestion issues near Holy Trinity, and these involved cars parking on the pavement on Dartmouth Rd. Eliot Bank, on the other hand, I received countless as the school is larger and congestion is greater. It is understandable (to me) why the intervention was focused here.
Today, I emailed our road safety and sustainable transport manager expressing anxieties about the proposed placement of the ANPR cameras and offering a potential remedy if the same level of congestion remains but below Radlett Avenue. My suggestion was that we could move the lower ANPR camera to the junction of Thorpewood Avenue & Dartmouth Road, while a rail-gate be placed at the junction of Derby Hill & Derby Hill Crescent. This isn’t without its issues, as one of the schools would need to agree to operate the gate and I am unsure how easy it is to move the cameras around.
Finally, noting some of the comments here… I don’t seem to understand the attitude that if a street gets nice things (model filter/CPZ/school street/public realm improvements) = “they get it but we don’t, therefore you’ve set street against street”. I have no idea where this attitude has been fostered and I sincerely hope it is not representative.
I just don’t get why you can’t see this is divisive. You are creating more problems for nearby schools and streets to favour one small area and one small school.
