Primary Schools affected by the traffic scheme face serious problems, including
Traffic officers refused to believe that the James Wolfe Primary School upper school campus in Royal Hill existed. It seems that planning for the scheme was fraught with Council traffic managers' failure in this, and other schools issues, to communicate and consult, or even to anticipate road safety risks.
Telram data collected on Royal Hill opposite Gloucester Circus suggests that traffic movement is twice as high during traffic-restricted times as during the unrestricted 10 am to 3pm weekday hours. At the same time, pedestrian movements around the school exceed 2,000 per day - on Royal Hill's narrow pavements - during the working week. (For comparison, Telram data has registered just 400 pedestrian movements per weekday on Blackheath Hill.)
These failures provoked crisis responses at primary schools in the week of the implementation of the Scheme in November 2024. Its introduction also saw floods of traffic diverted from the East Greenwich Scheme through Charlton to surround a beleaguered Fossdene Primary School, where parents, carers and pupils struggled to reach the school gates through unprecedented traffic chaos.
Invicta Primary School, on Invicta Road, (just inside the East Greenwich Scheme) was openly critical of the council’s handling of the rollout and its lack of consultation. Executive Headteacher Jodie Cawte, and Head of School Business and Operations, Kate Fry, shared a letter to parents outlining their grievances with the process and the potential consequences of the LTN scheme for their school community, in a move that most schools with local authority links shared, but were less able to express openly. The letter to Parents and Carers dated 27 November 2024 said: "A primary concern is the potential increase in pollution and decreased air quality for students at the school’s Blackheath site. The school is situated near major traffic routes, including the A102 Blackwall Tunnel approach, which is expected to bear redirected traffic due to the LTN and the opening of the Silvertown Tunnel in spring next year.
‘The new LTN is intended to reduce traffic and pollution in certain areas,’ the letter states, ‘but there seems to be no consideration for those living and working adjacent to roads that will now see an influx of redirected vehicles.’
Despite claims by Greenwich Council that schools in the area had been consulted, the letter denies hearing anything before the LTN was implemented, stating, ‘Not one person from the council thought to contact, nor speak to our school before the LTN was implemented, and we are now struggling to make sense of the judgements behind this scheme, and concerned of the impact it will have on our pupils and our school.’
Other points in the letter included 'additional challenges to recruit and retain high quality teachers', 'teachers being able to get to lessons on time, family and staff with registered disabilities who rely on car travel to get to work and school'. With two campuses, the letter also referred to problems in with joint training and meetings.
The Scheme continues to cause difficulties. Almost all primary schools make special provision for pupils with disabilities. The Council's 'concessions' cannot solve the problems of special needs transportation and the myriad issues in school management, where reliance on the boundary roads has made such impacts.
Many special needs children are place out of their area for schooling, or have siblings at other school. While specialist bus transportation requires several individual stops to pick up and deliver individual pupils from homes to schools.
Is Greenwich Council likely to reconsider the claims of key education and social services in reconsidering the impact of the scheme?
- risks to pupils and parents walking to school,
- longer and more polluted vehicle journeys for special needs and disabled pupils, and
- loss of vital staff due to extended journeys to work and a lack of parking facilities.
Traffic officers refused to believe that the James Wolfe Primary School upper school campus in Royal Hill existed. It seems that planning for the scheme was fraught with Council traffic managers' failure in this, and other schools issues, to communicate and consult, or even to anticipate road safety risks.
Telram data collected on Royal Hill opposite Gloucester Circus suggests that traffic movement is twice as high during traffic-restricted times as during the unrestricted 10 am to 3pm weekday hours. At the same time, pedestrian movements around the school exceed 2,000 per day - on Royal Hill's narrow pavements - during the working week. (For comparison, Telram data has registered just 400 pedestrian movements per weekday on Blackheath Hill.)
These failures provoked crisis responses at primary schools in the week of the implementation of the Scheme in November 2024. Its introduction also saw floods of traffic diverted from the East Greenwich Scheme through Charlton to surround a beleaguered Fossdene Primary School, where parents, carers and pupils struggled to reach the school gates through unprecedented traffic chaos.
Invicta Primary School, on Invicta Road, (just inside the East Greenwich Scheme) was openly critical of the council’s handling of the rollout and its lack of consultation. Executive Headteacher Jodie Cawte, and Head of School Business and Operations, Kate Fry, shared a letter to parents outlining their grievances with the process and the potential consequences of the LTN scheme for their school community, in a move that most schools with local authority links shared, but were less able to express openly. The letter to Parents and Carers dated 27 November 2024 said: "A primary concern is the potential increase in pollution and decreased air quality for students at the school’s Blackheath site. The school is situated near major traffic routes, including the A102 Blackwall Tunnel approach, which is expected to bear redirected traffic due to the LTN and the opening of the Silvertown Tunnel in spring next year.
‘The new LTN is intended to reduce traffic and pollution in certain areas,’ the letter states, ‘but there seems to be no consideration for those living and working adjacent to roads that will now see an influx of redirected vehicles.’
Despite claims by Greenwich Council that schools in the area had been consulted, the letter denies hearing anything before the LTN was implemented, stating, ‘Not one person from the council thought to contact, nor speak to our school before the LTN was implemented, and we are now struggling to make sense of the judgements behind this scheme, and concerned of the impact it will have on our pupils and our school.’
Other points in the letter included 'additional challenges to recruit and retain high quality teachers', 'teachers being able to get to lessons on time, family and staff with registered disabilities who rely on car travel to get to work and school'. With two campuses, the letter also referred to problems in with joint training and meetings.
The Scheme continues to cause difficulties. Almost all primary schools make special provision for pupils with disabilities. The Council's 'concessions' cannot solve the problems of special needs transportation and the myriad issues in school management, where reliance on the boundary roads has made such impacts.
Many special needs children are place out of their area for schooling, or have siblings at other school. While specialist bus transportation requires several individual stops to pick up and deliver individual pupils from homes to schools.
Is Greenwich Council likely to reconsider the claims of key education and social services in reconsidering the impact of the scheme?
