I left off back in April with a KOV meeting, focused somewhat on the Strategy for the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area, but as one commentator noted, I failed to cover an impromptu note from the floor detailing work performed by David Boardman (and others) from the Kennington Association Planning Forum. I know that planning matters can be dull, but the big story here is that the KA Planning Forum claim that the funding gap in the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area (mostly on account of the Northern Line infrastructure) is not £58 million, as highlighted by the Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) (commissioned by the GLA and developers), but a whopping £588 million. This is a major regeneration news story that has not (as far as I know) been noticed by the mainstream press at all.
I was going to try and write it all out to explain where the money is missing, but it was easier to develop the graph produced by KAPF and add a few explanatory notes. As you'll see, the first graph shows an admitted £58 million funding gap, but the DIFS study didn't make it very clear that developers were refusing to fund £62 million of required police, health etc. spending and that £63 million funding was supposed to come from borrowing, despite the fact that Wandsworth Council don't like to borrow on account of it being costly to tax payers. That means that the original deficit was closer to £183 million. You can see it all detailed on this first graph. See the penultimate page of the revised chapter 12 VNEB OAPF for the figures used in Graph 1:
Once the document had been out for a while, KAPF analysed it and found significant weaknesses. They specifically sympathised with the company asked to write the DIF study (Roger Tym and Partners) on account of their being asked to "believe a number of implausible things". So here's a few reasons that KAPF think the developers are wildly optimistic on spend:
* When working on funding for any transport project, the Department of Transport ask that an optimism bias be added. This is to account for the fact that major engineering projects are unwieldy and expensive. In the VNEB OAPF, £800 million was allocated for the Northern Line Extension. But by the time the DIFS emerged, the optimism bias had been removed and the NLE had been reduced to £564 million (shaded light pink). KAPF chose to add £130 million (a 23% optimism bias) back into the costs (shaded bright orange).
* Affordable housing was reduced in the DIFS to 15%, despite the fact that Lambeth's Affordable Housing targets are 40%. If only 15% of the housing built was affordable, the developers would be able to raise a levy of £40k per dwelling. If 40% of housing built was affordable, a levy of only £25k per dwelling is possible. High levels of affordable housing would reduce the funding, leaving costs at the same level.
* By assuming lower levels of social housing, there has been an economizing of both healthcare and education costs. In order to estimate numbers of children for schools, Wandsworth assumed a 10% child yield (1 child in every 10 properties), but child yield in Lambeth is currently 20%. Wandsworth also removed 25% of children from their calculations on the assumption that they'd be educated privately. KAPF think that if the midpoint figure of their estimates is used by both councils, a secondary school is definitely required. That's another unanticipated £74 million (shaded bright yellow) on top of current education provision (shaded light green). If KAPF are correct in their estimation, they also think that a primary school will need to expand to being four form entry. If a new primary school is required, the costs go up further (this is not shown on the graph).
* The KAPF review of the infrastructure report goes into plenty more detail over other issues, but I want to provide a broad overview. By far and away the largest problem is the lack of green space in the VNEB. It is certainly deficient, and this was proved by the refusal of the Secretary of State to permit the appeal of the developers on the Bondway. In the Mayor's Planning Framework, the linear park (a long green strip running from Vauxhall to Battersea) was intended to be 1500m long and 50-100m wide, a total of 11.3 hectares. By the time the developers had finished with their Infrastructure study, they had reduced the total park space to 3.5 hectares! Assuming it was still to be 1500m long, it would only be approx. 23m in width.
The national standard for green space is 2.4 hectares of open space per 1000 people, Lambeth's open space projections assume that the entire Borough will eventually have 1.44 hectares of green space per 1000 people. If the VNEB were to be constructed with a park of only 3.5 hectares, the area would be unproceedable. To reintroduce the missing hectares, and bring the VNEB up to the level of Lambeth's most space deficient ward (Ferndale), would cost the developers, by KAPF's estimations, £200m (shaded bright pink).
So, on a basic reading by a local planning forum, you can see that the sums don't add up. A deficit of over £588m is not something that can be papered over. I know that there have been more developments on the VNEB (including the leader of Lambeth Council coming on board for the project) since I updated last month, so I'll blog about that in due course.
Posts
28 comments:
Thank god you're back!
Welcome back! was worried about you...
Nice to have you back Lurker!
I'm a bit concerned by the consultation document for the Northern Line Extension that suggests that the main construction sites for the project will be in Radcot/Methley Street and Kennington Park. However they have not invited views on this in the current consultation; leaving this part until later.
By keeping these two areas out of the current consultation they seem to be loading the process to engage 'positive' responses only (i.e. from Battersea) while all the costs and disruption will be for Kennington. In fact the whole consultation is flawed by not setting out a full CBA and failing to run for the statutory 12 week period.
I would encourage people to respond to it.
Link here - check out the pdf doc:
http://www.northernlineextension.com/questionnaire.aspx
This is certainly worthy of media coverage - perhaps someone @ Evening Standard would pick it up.
Does beg the question why they don't just upgrade existing overground links at Battersea Park and Queenstown Road for a fraction of the cost, or put in light rail /tram shuttle service.
Firstly, welcome back Lurker, you've been sorely missed!
Secondly, I'm going to be very unpopular and stick my neck on the line.
Can we please stop pretending that this argument is about anything other than a group of people who (perhaps justifiably?) don't want tube tunnels running under their own houses?
There are so many arguments being bandied around at the moment, it just smacks of people scrabbling to try and find some kind of 'general' excuse to try and avoid being labelled a NIBMY.
A couple of the arguments I've heard in recent weeks:
This doesn't benefit Lambeth / Vauxhall residents
Try saying that to the '000s of people who live in the Wyvil, Mawbey Brough, Church Commissioners, Hemans and Lansdowne Green estates, who will benefit from the new Nine Elms station. Furthermore, by giving passengers from both the Nine Elms Lane and Wandsworth Road corridors other transport options, you reduce the number of people travelling into Vauxhall station, easing the pressure there that leads to frequent peak-hour closures.
All the VNEB benefits go to Wandsworth
Question: Which borough has the overwhelming majority of new homes?
Is it therefore not logical for the majority of infrastructure investment to be in Wandsworth?
Why can't people use Battersea Park / Queenstown Road Stations?
Have you tried getting the trains from these stations in the rush hour? The trains are already full, there isn't enough space for 18,000 extra residents.
Why can't we make Vauxhall tube station bigger?
It can be made bigger. But TfL are opposed to this, because it means that there will be less capacity on the trains for passengers to board at Victoria station.
Listed homes /parks will be destroyed by five ventilation / construction shafts
Last time I checked, the derelict gin distillery and garages on the Ashmole Estate weren't listed buildings or parks. However I'd agree strongly with anyone who's upset about a shaft being built in Kennington Park.
£568m Funding Gap
35% of this figure is for parkland that local civic organisations would like. It's not exactly a gap on *committed* development. 22% is the additional optimism bias. You can potentially argue around this, typically where projects are delivered by the private sector (e.g. new Canary Wharf Crossrail stn), cost overruns can be lower. In any case, it might be better to lobby to ensure that any cost overruns are met by the developer.
11% is regarding emergency services funding - in fact the OA is funding part of the cost, but the gap is attributed to the fact that the facilities would also be used by existing properties - out of scope of the OA.
15% Affordable Housing
Happy to have a debate on this one, the trade-off is that there will be more private funds for infrastructure if there is a lower percentage of affordable housing. I'm not sure many people criticising this scheme would want there to be less money available for infrastructure. Some people are complaining that the tariff of £40k per property will price people out of the market, whilst contradicting themselves in the same breath by arguing that fewer properties should be built in the first place (clue: if you build fewer properties, they will be more expensive).
Secret Consultation / Conspiracy
A lot of the homes immediately near the proposed Nine Elms station (i.e. those most likely to support the scheme) haven't had consultation information. It's very bad that not everyone is getting the information that they should, but I would blame incompetence rather than a conspiracy.
Please, can we have a reasoned debate? I'm getting tired of a lot of the spin and misinformation being spread by some people opposing this scheme, especially when the alternatives proposed by them aren't viable.
Mark, yes please – let’s have a reasoned debate. I will respond to your points in the order made.
Part 1:
But first let me skip past your accusation of NIMBY-ism. I would have thought it unpolitic to be so immediately disrespectful of the legitimate concerns of people who have elected you to represent them, but as the politician here you obviously know better.
1. “This doesn't benefit Lambeth / Vauxhall residents - Try saying that to the '000s of people who live in the Wyvil, Mawbey Brough, Church Commissioners, Hemans and Lansdowne Green estates, who will benefit from the new Nine Elms station…”
- Mark, you are elected to represent and prioritise the interests of Princes Ward, not any of the above areas. You would do well to remember that.
2. “All the VNEB benefits go to Wandsworth - Question: Which borough has the overwhelming majority of new homes? Is it therefore not logical for the majority of infrastructure investment to be in Wandsworth? “
- No Mark, the point is not that Wandsworth are getting sweeties and we are not. It is that the costs are very largely and disproportionately born by the residents of SE11 as massive construction sites are driven through the area.
3. “Why can't people use Battersea Park / Queenstown Road Stations? -Have you tried getting the trains from these stations in the rush hour? The trains are already full, there isn't enough space for 18,000 extra residents.”
- The rush-hour frequency of services at these stations is one train every 20 minutes. Less at other times of day. The argument is that these services could be upgraded to a tube-like frequency, using a shuttle service on existing transport corridors, for a fraction of the cost and disruption of extending the tube, and vastly more flexible and useful to residents of VNEB. Before anyone claims that the infrastructure does not already exist, they are invited to note the unused Eurostar lines and platforms that go into Waterloo via Battersea Park, constructed at great expense and currently unused. This solution has never been properly examined or costed.
4. “Why can't we make Vauxhall tube station bigger? - It can be made bigger. But TfL are opposed to this, because it means that there will be less capacity on the trains for passengers to board at Victoria station.”
Mark – perhaps you mistyped because this does not make sense – Victoria is the terminus. But it’s interesting to know that you will oppose something on the basis that TfL are against it.
Part 2:
5.” Listed homes /parks will be destroyed by five ventilation / construction shafts. Last time I checked, the derelict gin distillery and garages on the Ashmole Estate weren't listed buildings or parks. However I'd agree strongly with anyone who's upset about a shaft being built in Kennington Park.”
Mark – this is a disgracefully dismissive statement. So this is your response to the residents of Methley Street, Radcot Street, Stannary Street, Ravendon Street, De Laune Street, Sharsted Street, Harmsworth Street, Cleaver Square, Kennington Green, Claylands Road and Kennington Park Place who can all see on the consultation pamphlet that their streets are potentially condemned to site the construction shafts for the Northern Line extension.
Do you fail to understand the sickening concern that these people have that their lives are about to be turned upside down? Do you question why there is such anger that their own elected representatives are so casually dismissive of their concerns? When they have received no notice of the consultation about these plans from the authorities concerned, and read first about it on this blog, do you wonder why they feel conspired against?
We know what it means to sink construction shafts like these. We have all seen entire city blocks condemned by the Crossrail works. It is not the Park that we are worried about Mark. It is our homes and livelihoods. Your casual disregard is staggering.
Sorry for the multiple posts - the system seems to think they are too long ;-)
Joe,
I think you're mistaking me for Cllr. Harrison. To avoid any doubt and to prevent unjustified damage to Cllr. Harrison's reputation, I'd like to make 110% clear that I am NOT Cllr. Harrison.
I'm a local resident who supports the tube line. I'm not an elected official in any capacity. If you'd followed the link on my name, you'd have seen my Twitter profile and, if nothing else, seen that I look nothing like Cllr. Harrison.
Lurker knows who I am and I'm sure would be happy to verify that what I'm saying is correct if you have any doubts.
eek! Mark - I'm very sorry for that misunderstanding - which you correctly suppose.
I shall let my points stand for the record, nonetheless. With sincere apologies for the misidentification.
Joe,
I'll reply to your other comments tomorrow, but I wanted to make sure that specific point was corrected urgently before that confusion caused further problems.
Final bit of response:
6. “£568m Funding Gap - …”
– I think this is adequately dealt with in the Lurker’s main post, so I shall not repeat the points here except to note that Mark’s response does not question the accuracy of the calculation, but suggests some ways in which it should be mitigated and/or ignored.
7. “15% Affordable Housing - …”
Mark, I completely agree with your points on this. Developers often try this tack, and it should be resisted. If the development cannot stand on it merits, and within the rules, then the proposals should change.
8. “Secret Consultation / Conspiracy - A lot of the homes immediately near the proposed Nine Elms station (i.e. those most likely to support the scheme) haven't had consultation information. It's very bad that not everyone is getting the information that they should, but I would blame incompetence rather than a conspiracy.”
Concerns on this point are based on three facts:
i) Without knowing where consultation leaflets have gone to, I live in Methley Street and am yet to come across a household among my neighbours who are among the 40,000 invited to respond to the consultation.
ii) The consultation is partial. It does not invite responses from those affected by the construction sites, and only asks questions from respondents about the potential benefits. By leaving the consultation on construction until after the main consultation has been approved, the process appears to be unfairly loaded against residents of SE11.
iii) As well as having no notice of the consultation, we note that only lasts for 4 weeks. This is substantially less than the 12 week standard set by government.
Taken together these factors mean that the consultation is flawed. Incompetence is not an excuse.
Part 3:
6. “£568m Funding Gap - …”
– I think this is adequately dealt with in the Lurker’s main post, so I shall not repeat the points here except to note that Mark’s response does not question the accuracy of the calculation, but suggests some ways in which it should be mitigated and/or ignored.
7. “15% Affordable Housing - …”
Mark, I completely agree with your points on this. Developers often try this tack, and it should be resisted. If the development cannot stand on it merits, and within the rules, then the proposals should change.
8. “Secret Consultation / Conspiracy - ...”
Not aware of the 'conspiracy' accusation. There are some very legitimate concerns about the conduct of the consultation, based on three facts:
i) Without knowing where consultation leaflets have gone to, I live in Methley Street and am yet to come across a household among my neighbours who are among the 40,000 invited to respond to the consultation.
ii) The consultation is partial. It does not invite responses from those affected by the construction sites, and only asks questions from respondents about the potential benefits. By leaving the consultation on construction until after the main consultation has been approved, the process appears to be unfairly loaded against residents of SE11.
iii) As well as having no notice of the consultation, we note that only lasts for 4 weeks. This is substantially less than the 12 week standard set by government.
Taken together these factors mean that the consultation is flawed. Incompetence is not an excuse.
I live on Methley Street and got the document, as did a lot of people living nearby.
As Lurker will point out, I can be a bit of a transport geek, so apologies in advance...
Overall my view is that if you start with the 'problem' of "How do you help 18,000/25,000 new residents get to work?" then the proposed solution really is (to my mind) the most logical / effective way to address the problem. Then there is a subsequent question about "How do you build it whilst minimising impacts for existing residents?" and on this point I'd agree with you more that so far the developers don't seem to have thought this through in sufficient detail and it needs to be challenged. If I were organising a campaign group (which I'm not), it wouldn't be outright opposing the scheme, it would be a bit more pragmatic, accept the need for the scheme, and then work to mitigate the impacts of the development.
As for some specific points:
Better trains from Battersea Park / Queenstown Road
To sum up, both the trains and the tracks at both stations are at capacity. It's worth noting that not all trains stop at either station, so whilst there may not be a high number of trains stopping (it's actually 10 per hour at Battersea Park, 7 per hour Queenstown Rd), the remaining track capacity is used by trains that don't stop. There are some committed projects (increasing train length by 25% on trains serving Battersea Park) and proposals to add 3tph via Queenstown Road. The latter is already based on the assumption of the additional platforms at Waterloo, and brining Platform 1 at Queenstown Road back into use. The London and South East RUS are both good places to look if you want more info. Aside from these projects, there are significant capacity constraints that prevent more trains per hour being scheduled. Lengthening trains is never cheap, as you need to upgrade all the stations, energy supplies, depots, and sometimes signaling too. The Victoria 10-car project is costed at £200m. It's worth noting that even with these enhancements, services are already predicted to be crowded.
Victoria Line
Victoria is not the terminus of the Victoria Line :) TfL do have a position that the Victoria line is at capacity, and that improving access at Vauxhall would mean that not so many people could fit on the trains at Victoria, causing crowding and peak-time closures there. You're right of course that people can choose to disagree with TfL, although my (humble) opinion is that TfL's position is well-reasoned - all that improving capacity at Vauxhall would do is move the problem elsewhere on the line, rather than generate additional transportation capacity.
Tram
TfL did some modeling on a possible tram route between Battersea and Waterloo. The basic conclusion was that people would use it as a mechanism to travel to Vauxhall for connecting tube services, instead of using it to complete their journey. So a tram would essentially compound the crowding problems at Vauxhall.
(Cont'd)
(Cont'd)
Construction Sites
I do have a fair amount of sympathy here. I would disagree though that we would face situations where entire blocks of homes in Kennington are removed - where this has happened for Crossrail such as at TCR, it has been to build entire stations, which is not what's proposed here. However I'd agree with you that the consultation so far is vague in terms of the size / impact of these sites, site access management, spoil extraction etc, and this should be clarified urgently by the developers to prevent unnecessary alarm. Of the shafts my biggest concerns would be the two construction shafts, and you say, it's troubling that these are glossed over in the consultation.
Consultation
As I mentioned, I know several areas which would lean towards support the scheme (near the proposed Nine Elms station) that haven't had any consultation literature. Based on this, I'd suggest that it's shoddy distribution, and not a calculated attempt to exclude properties directly affected by the scheme so as to massage the results. As for the consultation time, I can only presume that this isn't a statutory consultation and that a statutory consultation will be conducted when the final detailed plans are available.
Hm. The links I'd tried to post didn't work. Let's try again...:
London and South East RUS
South London RUS
(Fingers crossed)
Mark - no apologies required - many thanks for your response, which is perfectly reasoned and informed.
While I disagree with some of your judgements, I do not contest facts. And I appreciate the substance of your contribution.
My view is inevitably coloured by the fact that my home (of the last 10+ years) is within the potential destruction zone identified by the 'consultation'. As are the homes of my neighbours. And we read about it first on this blog.
The Northern Line loop runs beneath our homes - that is not the issue, because it is sufficiently deep to have never been anything but an insignificant distraction. The problem is the suggestion that this quiet, special, community is about to be destroyed by construction works because it will benefit the developers bottom line vis-a-vis the next least costly solution.
Indeed, we do contest that alternatives would be more costly. There is capacity on the unused Eurostar tracks and platforms from Queenstown Road, which are unused; and the high-speed link to Kent has opened capacity at Victoria and Battersea Park. All that is required are new train sets, which would anyway be procured for a northern Line solution.
However, an overground shuttle service may not add the premium to property prices that a bespoke tube station would for Treasury Holdings Ltd.
There are serious problems with this 'consultation'. But I won't comment further on that here. This hasn't yet begun.
Mark - many thanks for your response - which is perfectly reasoned and informed. While I disagree with some of your judgements, I do not contest facts. And I appreciate the substance of your contribution.
My view is inevitably coloured by the fact that my home (of the last 10+ years) is within the potential destruction zone identified by the 'consultation'. As are the homes of my neighbours. And we read about it first on this blog.
The Northern Line loop runs beneath our homes - that is not the issue, because it is sufficiently deep to have never been anything but an insignificant distraction. The problem is the suggestion that this quiet, special, community is about to be destroyed by construction works because it will benefit the developers bottom line vis-a-vis the next least costly solution.
Indeed, we do contest that alternatives would be more costly. There is capacity on the unused Eurostar tracks and platforms from Queenstown Road, which are unused; and the high-speed link to Kent has opened capacity at Victoria and Battersea Park. All that is required are new train sets, which would anyway be procured for a northern Line solution.
However, an overground shuttle service may not add the premium to property prices that a bespoke tube station would for Treasury Holdings Ltd.
There are serious problems with this 'consultation'. Thankfully there are enough judges, barristers and MPs living in these streets that I expect that the fight will not be lost easily.
I won't comment further here. This hasn't yet begun.
Problems getting posts up at the moment ...
Mark - many thanks for your response - which is perfectly reasoned and informed. While I disagree with some of your judgements, I do not contest facts. And I appreciate the substance of your contribution.
My view is inevitably coloured by the fact that my home (of the last 10+ years) is within the potential destruction zone identified by the 'consultation'. As are the homes of my neighbours. And we read about it first on this blog.
The Northern Line loop runs beneath our homes - that is not the issue, because it is sufficiently deep to have never been anything but an insignificant distraction. The problem is the suggestion that this quiet, special, community is about to be destroyed by construction works because it will benefit the developers bottom line vis-a-vis the next least costly solution.
Indeed, we do contest that alternatives would be more costly. There is capacity on the unused Eurostar tracks and platforms from Queenstown Road, which are unused; and the high-speed link to Kent has opened capacity at Victoria and Battersea Park. All that is required are new train sets, which would anyway be procured for a northern Line solution.
However, an overground shuttle service may not add the premium to property prices that a bespoke tube station would for Treasury Holdings Ltd.
There are serious problems with this 'consultation'. Thankfully there are enough judges, barristers and MPs living in these streets that I expect that the fight will not be lost easily.
I won't comment further here. This hasn't yet begun.
Mark - many thanks for your response - which is perfectly reasoned and informed. While I disagree with some of your judgements, I do not contest facts. And I appreciate the substance of your contribution.
My view is inevitably coloured by the fact that my home (of the last 10+ years) is within the potential destruction zone identified by the 'consultation'. As are the homes of my neighbours. And we read about it first on this blog.
The Northern Line loop runs beneath our homes - that is not the issue, because it is sufficiently deep to have never been anything but an insignificant distraction. The problem is the suggestion that this quiet, special, community is about to be destroyed by construction works because it will benefit the developers bottom line vis-a-vis the next least costly solution.
Indeed, we do contest that alternatives would be more costly. There is capacity on the unused Eurostar tracks and platforms from Queenstown Road, which are unused; and the high-speed link to Kent has opened capacity at Victoria and Battersea Park. All that is required are new train sets, which would anyway be procured for a northern Line solution.
However, an overground shuttle service may not add the premium to property prices that a bespoke tube station would for Treasury Holdings Ltd.
There are serious problems with this 'consultation'. Thankfully there are enough judges, barristers and MPs living in these streets that I expect that the fight will not be lost easily.
I won't comment further here. This hasn't yet begun.
Having received both the official consultation and the flyer (I live in the NIMBY square) from a neighbour protesting, I have a few initial thoughts.
1) We had similar "consultation" on the Cross River Tram. It came to nothing and this is far from being a reality (2017 opening at the earliest, which is mega optimistic).
2) There is hyperbole on the ill effects of this, but perhaps it takes such to get attention
3) That said, it is clear that the people of Kennington will have to endure many months, even years of pain for minimal gain (if any). I simply do not see Battersea, no matter how regenerated, as a big draw when better amentities are available.
4) However, there is a "greater good" argument - that we should do our bit to improve the greater public transport system of London.
5) There is a line about "improvements" - suggesting they will reward us with something if we bear the pain. In the end, my hunch is we'll be a smaller number in opposition, and the best we can fight for is optimal improvements.
Our little Heart of Kennington Residents Association is akin to a small village committee. Not a lot gets done, and they don't fight for much (we had wonderful trees cut down replaced with poor stock that keep falling down, our street lamps are rubbish, our pavements etc. and the Association doesn't ever complain). It will be interesting to see if they step up.
My initial reaction is that "this is not the tram"!
First I've heard of it though, which is odd to say the least.
Attended one of the "shows" with a few more nuggets to add.
- There will be a "temporary construction shaft" somewhere on Methley, Radcot, Ravensdon area. It will mean "shutting down the street for a while" (likely many months, even a year or more). They are currently discussin with Lambeth Council the best option and will meet with the community "probably at the Durning Library in September" with the outcome.
- They claim the end result will be less noise/vibration, as the new tunnels will be deeper and the turnaround tunnel used less.
- They are inclined to re-invest in the areas they disrupt with landscaping and such. A "pot of cash" to improve the area.
- The Northern Line is expected to get 20% more capacity by 2014 so it is preferable to the Victoria Line, which is at capacity now.
- Yes, they sheepishly admit that the areas bearing the pain will not benefit very much when completed (actually "if", as this is still very much undecided and unfunded)
Does anyone (apart from the bloggers themselves) actually read this?
Wouldn't it be better, if those electronically communicating reams and reams of blog entries to each other were to meet up and have a chat over a pint instead?
This would also avoid the potential mix-up of identities (is he Cllr Mark Harrison or isn't he?). In my view that demonstrated nicely what's wrong with the whole blogging culture. I don't dispute that there are (among the nerds and spammers) some genuinely well informed blogs, but even when a name is provided, how can you ever be sure who is really behind it, and hence what their agenda might be?
Incidentally, I have come accross an interesting website in this context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Hi Andrea,
I'm not sure if your "Astroturfing" comment that you posted was a pointed remark at me or not.
In terms of my personal background / agenda:
- I'm not linked to any developer, TfL, DfT, or any other interested party (In fact, I'm an IT project manager, and have been working in the field for six years)
- I do live 50m away from the proposed tunnels, and 150m away from the proposed Nine Elms station. I consider myself a Vauxhall resident, but I think it is fair to say that a lot of the "Vauxhall" organisations (e.g. Vauxhall Civic Society) tend to forget about this corner of Vauxhall and its residents in the Wyvil, Mawbey, Church Commissioners, Hemans estates.
Very happy to 'admit' that I have an interest in the scheme being built. However I don't see my speaking up in support of the scheme as any different from those objecting because there is the possibility of the scheme having a negative impact on them.
Post a Comment