Wednesday 8 June 2011

Northern Line Extension to Battersea: There are drawbacks, but a defence must be made


I've been meaning to comment on the Northern Line Extension for a while, but I've been taking time to formulate a view.  This may prove controversial locally (and I'm reserving any full support until the positions of temporary shafts are known), but I'm broadly in favour of the Northern Line Extension provided that the developers agree to certain stipulations around minimising disruption which are likely being hammered out at present.  (Clearly, the developers won't listen to me, but the local community is calling for relocating certain shafts, which may prove necessary!)  I will obviously blog about and publicise the campaign groups who are arguing the other point of view, but as a local blogger and public transport supporter, my view is generally favourable.  Before you go any further, you may wish to read further information on the NLE proposals at Treasury Holdings' Northern Line Extension site and/or complete their online questionnaire by the deadline of 17th June 2011.

The Northern Line Extension would see the Northern Line Charing Cross branch splitting at Kennington (it terminates at Kennington for all intents and purposes at present) with two new stops added to the branch, one at Nine Elms (on Sainsbury's site) and one at Battersea Power Station.  I like the idea of being able to get the tube from Kennington Park to Battersea Park, and of expanding the underground to overlooked areas in South London. 

My major criticisms of the scheme strategic and don't pertain to the developers.  The main issue that I have is that the proposed extension is not a TFL strategic transport decision, but a developer-funded initiative.  Ideally, for any extension, the tunneling equipment hire expenses should be allayed through a wholesale expansion, rather than a one line extension.  The Battersea stretch of Northern line could branch north of the river to Victoria.  The Northern Line tunnel should be expanded west beyond Battersea (which could receive two stations, not just one) to link with Clapham Junction rail station and then onwards to the district line.  Finally, the Bakerloo line is would prove a much more worthy candidate for expansion than the Northern line.  Camberwell, Peckham, Dulwich, Upper Norwood, Beckenham, New Cross, Lewisham and Catford should receive underground linkup with their overground railway stations.  The money is not there, but it seems that this is possibly through years of overlooking south London's Underground requirements, and it's a shame that this window of opportunity can't be made to do more than a minor two-stop extension.  This seems to be one of the criticisms made by a ranty-Anonymous insider on Vauxhall Civic Society, but the fact it would have been better to do a wholesale strategic expansion does not remove the good of expanding and adding two stations to the Northern line.  I remain unconvinced that everybody is so busy focusing on the Olympics that they're overlooking VNEB.

There is also a related issue that the proposed Northern Line Extension is of major benefit to Nine Elms and Battersea, and of less benefit to Kennington, which will experience quite high levels of disruption.  The money being used to fund the NLE could be put to better use to improve Vauxhall (and will result in the Vauxhall-end developers facing a heavy levy for a line less accessible to their residents).  Tradescant Road also makes the criticism (as does David Boardman of the Kennington Association Planning forum) that the NLE will be funded with private money that would have otherwise entered the public purse for amenities such as libaries, schools, health etc.  I think that criticism should indeed be admitted, but the NLE clearly costs above and beyond normal Section 106 costs and the developers must by statute provide certain public services.  I suspect that whether or not you see the NLE as a good thing will depend on how much you value the expansion of the Underground tube network into South London and whether you think this balances the disruption that will inevitably result.

We are hoping that Lambeth Council will ensure that Lambeth doesn't lose out and that Vauxhall gyratory issues are resolved (more on this in a later post).  I think that arguing that Kennington will be disrupted is a NIMBY issue rather than a major criticism of the plan to expand the NLE.  (Mind you, we haven't yet been told how long/if they'll have to close Kennington tube station for the development, and *that* might irritate a greater number of people than at present, but I suspect those people won't pay any attention to the issue until it arises, by when it will be too late to stop the closures!)  Wapping became a distinctly undesirable place to live for some commuters when its tube station as closed for an age a year or so back. 

I do sympathise with people who will be inconvenienced by the permanent or temporary shafts at Kennington but a straightforward utilitarian "greater transport good" argument can be made to support the NLE.  Successful oposition to the NLE would ensure that the development could not proceed at Battersea.  I cannot see that there is enough opposition at present, considering that most of it emenates from Kennington and Oval residents, to stop the very determined Treasury Holdings from regenerating their building.  I suspect that wider London sentiment would fall favourably with the dilapidated iconic Battersea Power Station owners to avoid the loss of a much-loved building.

I intend to write a second post re. the developers contribution at the KOV meeting that took place last night, and answered many questions that will be of interest to local residents unable to attend.

11 comments:

Dean said...

My understanding is that an extension of the line to Clapham Junction was briefly considered, but was rejected as impractical – there simply isn't enough free capacity on the line.

Modelling suggested a large number of mainline train passengers would attempt to join the line at Clapham Junction, so extending the service to here would cause (even more) intolerable overcrowding to what is already a very busy line.

Where/when/how to extend the Bakerloo line is a decades-long debate and is unlikely to be resolved soon!

Mark said...

Good article, credit for writing this despite the knowledge that you may not be the most popular person in Kennington as a result.

The 'where should the tube go after Battersea?' question has been discussed at length by commenters over at London Reconnections. As David has pointed out, the line could well be overwhelmed if it was extended to Clapham Junction right now. I also suspect that as there's no money left in TfL's kitty, the best we can hope for is a tunnel / station design at Battersea that leaves open the future possibility of an extension, instead of a more-joined up approach.

The "community response" meeting next week will be interesting (still seeing if I can get out of work for it). I think that our beloved Oval ward councillors need to remember that they represent both residents who will benefit from the scheme (especially in the corner of Oval ward by Sainsbury's, where I live), as well as residents who may face disruption during the construction of the scheme, creating quite a tricky tightrope for them to walk.

I'm still hoping they will adopt the fairly pragmatic approach that you've outlined in your article - accept the need for it but work to reduce / mitigate the impacts of construction.

Anonymous said...

Last night (Wed) developers met with affected residents in Radcot, Methley etc. We finally saw the detailed proposed map through our neighbourhood and the ramifications were more fully explained. It was generally a well received briefing and I think there was support, but legitimate concerns and some good suggestions.

Anonymous said...

It is a commercial project. The benefit goes to the developer, the cost is on residents. At the Methley/radcot meeting it was pretty obvious that there was no question of compensation. And it is not for 'inconvenience'. It is the very real cost that (until 2017) no one directly affected will be able to sell their property, rent it out, or even enjoy it peaceably while they are forced to stay. This is a very real COST.

Anonymous said...

A constructive suggestion was made at the meeting for a location that would resolve 95% of the problem. The onus is on the developer to take this seriously. For a small cost, it is the difference between community support and community opposition. Which would they prefer?

SW8Guy said...

Thanks for a rather more balanced view than that if several other local 'community groups'.

I wonder how how many users of Oval or Kennington tube stations think ' Gosh, the building of this line must really have been an inconvenience to local residents 120 years ago, I wish it had never been built' every time they pass through?

SE11 Lurker said...

I didn't attend the Radcot/Methley meeting, so would be delighted if the last Anon. could mention what the constructive suggestion was for the location that would solve 95% of the problem. I can publicise it, if that might help...

Anonymous said...

yes , please tell us what the suggestion was and how it was received by the representative of the northern line extension.

Anonymous said...

I am a different Anon - but the suggestion was compulsory purchase of The White Bear beer garden and to located all construction out back of the pub for two years. There was a bit of nervous laughter, but they admitted it may work. The deliveries by the cement and dump trucks would go into to Cleaver Square (through the locked gates, not into the residential area).

Anonymous said...

Indeed, the original 2008 technical study (downloadable on the Northern Line website) shows that the 'White Bear Option' was the original engineers recommendation. Obviously it would cost them more than if Lambeth turn over Methley Street to them for free, so they seem to have conveniently forgotten about it as an since.

John said...

I missed the meeting to. Are there any other presentations coming up?

Label Cloud