Northern Line extension vs. Affordable Housing for Nine Elms - £58 million funding gap

Last summer, a Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) was conducted concerning the new Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea regeneration area.   It contains information about a vasty array of transport, health, education etc. requirements for the set up of the new "Nine Elms" town.  As soon as I can, I will disseminate the contents of that document, but in the meantime, chapter 12 (the section about 106 agreements) has been published by the Mayor of London and is now being consulted upon.  Although this chapter is rather dull and concerns Section 106 monies etc. the comments on it are likely to be very important to groups that are concerned with social housing and how the demographic of the new VNEB is to be constituted.

The matter of affordable housing considerably affects the levels of funding available for infrastructure.  It's recognised by the Funding Study that asking developers to provide a high percentage of affordable housing will affect the levels of contributions they can make towards the Northern Line Extension.  The government has not announced whether or how much they will make available in grants for the implementation of affordable housing, which adds confusion to the proceedings.  Chapter 12 of the Development Infrastucture Study makes it clear that Infrastucture is to be given the priority over affordable housing.  Whilst Lambeth Council would normally seek 40% or 50% affordable housing, in this instance, the study makes clear that 15% is more likely to be an adequate target:

"the 15% affordable housing option is considered the most appropriate for the majority of the opportunity area. However, the affordable housing level required by Lambeth will normally be 40%, although for sites within close proximity to the proposed station at Nine Elms and those which may not be suitable for family housing, the affordable housing level will normally be 15%."

It seems to me that this places the community in a double bind.  If anything greater than 15% affordable housing is requested, the developers may turn around and say that they cannot provide enough funding for the Northern Line Extension.  Since the Northern Line Extension is required for the whole project to go ahead (particularly the Battersea part), there appears to be no grounds for argument.  What do readers think?  Your views on the document should be sent to: mayor@london.gov.uk with the email subject heading, "VNEB S106" no later than March 21st.

Despite contributions to be made by the developers to the intrastructure, there is still a funding gap of £58 million (assuming economic recovery), and consequently it's recognised that some infrastructure projects will have to be prioritised over others.  The document notes:

It is not yet possible to determine which projects will be prioritised. However whilst it is recognised that Northern Line Extension is vital to the success of the Opportunity Area, a number of other transport and non-transport infrastructure projects are also required to make the development successful.

This raises questions in my mind about the level of commitment to the Northern Line Extension.  What will happen if the £58 million hole cannot be plugged?

Developments within the VNEB have been excluded from having to make contributions to the Crossrail project on account of needing to contribute to other infrastructure eg. the Northern Line Extension.  Indeed, many of the developers at Elephant are objecting that they're so far away from Crossrail, they shouldn't be forced to make payments, so it seems sensible to ensure that the VNEB funding goes to the Northern Line Extension.  Developments that lie on the river itself in what is being called "Zone A" (orange area on the above diagram) will be obliged to make larger contributions than developments in "Zone B" (purple area on the above diagram.  It looks as though most of the Vauxhall developments lie in Zone B.  A contribution tariff is displayed in the full version of the Section 106/CIL study. 

Wandsworth Council and transport / town centre - Part 5 of 5 from Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Exhibition VNEB

Finally, just for the record, I wanted to add the final in the series of VNEB exhibition boards. There is so much going on locally that it's difficult to keep up! These boards mostly show Wandsworth Council's outlines on the VNEB, which is importance since the majority of the VNEB falls on their patch.  In my view, the boards aren't quite as useful as the ones that Lambeth Council supplied on account of the fact that they don't summarise all of the buildings that have been granted planning permission to date.  Maybe there are too many to list (or they've not yet been declared), but without an idea of that, it's difficult to imagine the volume of housing and commercial space that will hit the area:

This board clearly outlines the scale of the development.  16,000 new homes means the arrival of a vast number of new residents.  I fail to see how 20,000 - 25,000 new jobs will be created when industrial space is being reduced, but perhaps we'll all be surprised:

Note the mention of the "linear park", linking Vauxhall to Battersea.  This will not provide adequate green space given the likely population density, even once the parks at Spring Gardens and Vauxhall have been taking into account:

The additional 800 primary school aged children will be catered for by /one/ primary school.  Goodness knows whether the other primary schools in the locality can be expanded to meet demand.  The 600 secondary school aged pupils will presumably have to be placed in existing schools.  I'm not sure whether a school feasibility study has been completed, but this /sounds/ a tad unrealistic even to my unknowledgable ears.  Battersea gets a library.  Vauxhall probably won't (but then, libraries aren't really in vogue at the moment, are they?):

Transport.   One of my favourite topics!  This poster indicates improved bus services, new bus routes and increased bus frequency.  It also shows enhanced railway stations (but doesn't mention enhanced services) so this probably just means the stations will get a make over (see here for Vauxhall rail station refurbishment).  Cyclists are mentioned here in terms of "better provision", but it doesn't clearly outline cycle lanes or segregated cycle paths on roads or anything like that.  There's mention of the proposed Northern line tube to Battersea, with an added station at Nine Elms (my favourite option, but it probably wouldn't do much to relieve congestion Kennington tube station).  However, I think the huge cost of this project will eventually mean that the area will get a tram (which is one of the proposed options in the giant VNEB consultation document).  I suppose another option might be to add a new National Rail station between Queenstown and Vauxhall, but looking at the map, this would probably be too far from the power station to meet the new residents' needs:

Here's a model, which I think illustrates how nasty and oversized the new St George tower will look. The architecture is not even particularly imaginative, just a round tall tower.  This model is not illustrative of all of the buildings planned for Vauxhall.  For some reason, some of these have been missed off.  The orange line on the plan is the new proposed tube route:

Just for the record, here are the last few signs up at the exhibition, and completes this rather long and tedious set of plans and photos in the VNEB series.

Part 1 (Ballymore section) of VNEB exhibition is here.
Part 2 (Lambeth Council section) of VNEB exhibition is here.
Part 3 (Tideway Wharf section) of VNEB exhibition is here.
Part 4 (Sainsbury's Towers section) of VNEB exhibition is here.

Battersea tube, Vauxhall Waitrose and the CS7 superhighway

There is lots of road digging underway around the junction of Kennington Park Road and Kennington Road.  Indeed, a new sign has appeared on Kennington Park Road, alerting us to the fact that the CS7 cycle superhighway (err, paint splodge) is imminent.  Also, there are lots of strange containers on the island outside Oval tube station.  However, it's not clear whether the digging and containers relates to the cycle superhighway or the ongoing Victorian water mains replacements, or just the eternal road digging that TFL, BT, Thames Water and British Gas (or whoever) like to inflict upon us.  The CS7 start has been "imminent" for some time but it seems that perhaps the CS7 TFL schedule is running slightly late (do take a look at the start dates for some idea of when your section was meant to be begin).  I'm expecting to exit Kennington tube any day now and see the CS7 in its full glory and blueness.  Of course, it's not in the slightest bit safe.  Stockwell News reported (and has videos) of a barely avoided collision on a "test" part of the route, and it will only be time before a cyclist assumes they're safer on the blue road, and is involved in a fatal accident.  I don't write those words lightly, but I think the creation of the Superhighways are rather rash ideas when they do not give cyclists the room they need to co-exist with buses and cars on trunk routes.

Speaking of the tube, there are rather a number of different stories flying around at the moment.  Whilst I was away, one Tweeter asked whether the proposed Northern line closures had disappeared on account of Boris' dissolution of the Private Finance Initiative with Tubelines.  It's really quite an astonishing story, and will result in TfL basically buying out Tubelines.  Apparently, London Assembly member Caroline Pidegon thinks it's good news and Boriswatch hasn't said anything about it, being more concerned with the vanity factor of Boris' new routemaster so I'm concluding that perhaps users won't suffer the closures after all.  On that note, I've been wondering when the 453 bendy bus to Lewisham is due to be de-commissioned and replaced with something less bendy, but I don't really want to draw attention to it. Its replacement (unless it were replaced with something uber-frequent) would never have the capacity.  It's currently a seriously stuffed bus, and it would be bad for passengers were it replaced with something smaller.  (So cyclists on this South London route must suffer).  Also, I suspect the fact remains that Boris has no love for South London so he's not particularly interested in transport down here.  Don't move to Peckham or Camberwell if you can help it, since the tube isn't coming any time soon.

But, some remedial measures will need to be introduced due to solve over-crowding.  In an under-reported article, I note that Boris has approved the suggestion that the Northern line be split at Kennington to impreove service on the Charing Cross branch.  It will mean that all South bound Charing Cross trains terminte at Kennington (although a lot of them currently seem to do so).  London Travelwatch have said "It's not the perfect solution".  Oh dear.  And that of course begs the question about whether the station will need to be closed to enable those works to be carried out!  Inevitably, the answer is "yes", so if we don't lose out on account of Tubelines closing the station, we risk losing out through the increased line capacity.  Perhaps it won't need to be closed to make the amendments, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

If Kennington travellers avoid disruption for the above reasons, it will be a miracle. I hardly think, however, that they can avoid future closure were the Battersea section of the Northern line to be built!  And, apparently, consultation from Treasury Holdings about the Battersea tube extension began yesterday.   Check out the full Battersea tube consultation leaflet here.  Don't get too excited.  It seems that they're consulting on a number of routes, route 1 looks as though it's a direct route to Battersea Power Station (possibly via Oval).  This involves less hassle, and is most likely to be the cheapest.  But, oh dear...  What about the proposed stop at Nine Elms?  That's Route 2.  It might cost a bit more to build a new tube station, but if we don't petition hard, Vauxhall is going to be packed (see below).  However, do look carefully, route 2 involves a South Nine Elms stop (on top of Sainsburys car park), which doesn't look to be so near the embassy.  Can't see it getting off the ground.  Route 3 is interesting, and one I hadn't considered.  It would connect Kennington to Vauxhall and then send Vauxhall on to Battersea, and Vauxhall would act as a hub.  But think of the congestion already at Vauxhall.  Wouldn't it make things worse?  And finally, there's route 4, which might be known as the US Embassy Express, which would link Kennington to Nine Elms North and then to Battersea.  This will probably be favoured by the Embassy themselves, who will have to cough up some of the cash.  Anyhow, this is just the consultation stage.  Remember what happened to the Cross River Tram, despite all of the consultation...

On a related note, Lambeth Council seem to have finally produced a document which concludes by stating what we all knew...  The Victoria line is at capacity.  Well, duh! But it's still ok to build the Nine Elms development (which will have the same population as Welwyn Garden City) on account of the fact that we could extend the concourse at Vauxhall. The document actually says, "The proposed works to Vauxhall Station, seek to reduce station congestion and improve public realm around the station by bringing the arch to the south of the station (former car rental office) into use as an extension to the existing concourse."  There are two slight problems.  The building that might be intended for the concourse extension is currently mooted to be the site of a new supermarket.  Perhaps it could be both.  But if the Waitrose rumours are true, I can't see the Waitrose shoppers loving to share their shop with the over-spill from Vauxhall tube station.  And, secondly, note that extending the capacity at Vauxhall Station doesn't actually increase the capacity of the Victoria line.  So there's not really any net gain, other than creating a holding pen for travellers.

How do we know about the supermarket? Mr OBB and his new posh neighbourhood watch club, were visited by the unassuming Clive Fraser of Lambeth Planning.  I'm not sure what Clive did in a previous life, but it must have been something really bad, since he's the chap that Lambeth Council send out to be their "public face of planning".  He's terribly nice.  But being terribly nice does not prevent more tall buildings appearing at Vauxhall when the transport infrastructure is currently at capacity.  I hope we'll see an improved  Vauxhall planning strategy that does more than just endorse the previous Mayor's contention that Vauxhall is a place for tall buildings (not that Boris has objected) from Lambeth Council.  We really need a sensible town plan for Vauxhall (rather than just a Supplementary Planning Document) so that we can review the developers' applications all at once, rather than one at a time.  How many more tall buildings are to be permitted before Vauxhall tube has to be made entry only in the morning, at peak periods?

Battersea Power Station and the tube...

Well, the news and outlook are not good for the much publicised tube station.

Indeed, to be fair, prospects are not good for the redevelopment of the Battersea Power Station either. The Guardian is reporting that Real Estate Opportunities, the financier of the project, is suffering from a huge debt of £1.6bn. Their auditors say that there are "material uncertainties" about the future of the business. It's all down, apparently, to the failure of the Irish property market.

It's probably too early to sound the death toll on the Battersea project yet, but the outlook doesn't appear to be bright, and the article acknowledges that the previous owners of the site have not made much headway. Don't look forward too much to the Battersea/Kennington Northern line connection until the economy improves, and even then, another firm might buy the site and change the plans entirely.

Battersea and Kennington linked by the Northern line

I've not commented much recently on the ongoing plans by the developers of Battersea Power Station to extend the tube from Kennington to a new stop named Nine Elms and through to Battersea itself although I remarked on the initial consultation.

There was a post back in July highlighting the fact that there would be tunnelling under South Lambeth from over at the Albert Square and St Stephen's Association blog. They've also pasted a very helpful tube map of what the extension would look like if it were built.

However, various blogs have been picking up the matter, and things have hotted up because the developers of the power station have submitted informal plans for the Battersea site itself. It's worth noting that that means nothing as yet since transport has not been mentioned in their plans. There have also been plenty of plans submitted by various developers that have had to be abandoned. Yet, some of the people over at London Connections became excited in July when it appeared that feasability studies had been completed and various parties were happy with the route. They even mention the fact that London Underground are looking into funding the line to continue on to Clapham Junction, so the northern line would head off West eg. Kennington > Nine Elms > Battersea > Clapham Junction. Boris Johnson is also understood to be supportive, and methods for raising funds by selling government bonds have been suggested.

So, what makes me raise the issue? I received a query by email about a week ago from somebody who said:

"I've just been talking to my local councillor and he says that there are plans to extend the Waterloo and City line through the Black Prince Road area to Vauxhall and Battersea as part of redeveloping Battersea Power Station... But he says that the developer wants to use the Northern line instead so that they don't have to go through working class areas, cos they only want rich guys turning up at their buildings. Is this true?"

I've no idea which councillor the article refers to, but this tale sounds like the conflation of several ideas. As far as I can tell, there has never been a plan to extend the Waterloo and City line (although this would be preferable as it would mean that the northern line and the Bakerloo line could be taken into the areas of South East London that are much more in need of the transport eg. Peckham, Lewisham). It strikes me as highly unlikely that the Black Prince Road area would be included, simply due to the money that it takes to build the stops. The Nine Elms stop, one presumes, is being built entirely for the US Embassy at Nine Elms and (hopefully) they'll be asked to fork out the cash. The Battersea stop would be included in the costs for the new development at Batterse. However, if you take a look at the London Connections comment section on the above article, you'll see that there's a fair amount of discussion about alternative routes, and there are various suggestions that it would be better to use the Waterloo and City line... Unfortunately, I've not heard any official discourse on the matter at all so we'll presume that if it goes ahead, it will fork from the Northern line and some of us are rather sceptical that the plan will go anywhere...

More on Battersea Power Station and Northern line Extension

Having now blogged the results from the Princes Ward 2009 election, Lurking about SE11 will return to greater commentary on news affecting the local area.

I think various other local blogs have covered this story, but it has popped up again in my local news feeds. There is currently a second public exhibition on the Battersea Power Station redevelopment. Since the first exhibition, the masterplan has been changed and various buildings have been (predictably) scaled down so the developers are reconsulting on the plans.

It's somewhat periperhal to SE11, but the reason it's interesting for us is because it would be very exciting to have the northern line connected via one or two stations to Battersea, which would open up the area for local residents here. As I said in my previous post, it's somewhat short sighted, but I favour nearly all public transport extensions. However, I notice that the new letter only states "plans for extending the Northern Line into Nine Elms" which isn't terribly clear. I know that there was one stop proposed (mentioned in my last post on the matter here), but I do vaguely recall hearing mention of a stop at Clapham Junction! Perhaps I made that up!

If you'd like to go along, there's more information on Treasury Holdings' Battersea Power Station website. You've not got long (tomorrow being your best opportunity now).

It's at Gate 2 of the Power Station site on Kirtling Street:

4th June: 12:00 - 20:00
5th June: 10:00 - 18:00
6th June: 10:00 - 17:00

Battersea Tube Home?

There's an article in today's Kennington news journal about the proposed tube extension to Battersea, which would apparently be paid for by some developers who want to put a vile building next to the lovely (but somewhat derelict) power station.

Here is a picture of the lovely Battersea power station, taken from Wikipedia:



Here is a picture of the vile building (with the power station to the right) that some people want to place in Battersea:



Now, as a self-confessed public transport geek, it would be grand to see a development of the Northern Line from Battersea to Kennington, but I want to raise a few issues that I think may be shared by other Londoners:

1. The wonderful development of a new tube station at Battersea, funded through private finance, is a waste of money when one considers that the tube could be extended much furthur than just one stop. Once one has begun digging underground, and arranged labour, material, machinery and civil engineers, one might as well go a lot furthur south. If TFL could get government money for tube expansion (or even tram lines), we wouldn't have to be so grateful to private finance for such suggestions as new bits of tube.

2. Extending the tube by one segment of line and one station just does not justify the monstrous building that has been suggested. I'm actually in favour of new housing/buildings in London, but I have one condition for all buildings. Buildings should not be considerably higher than those already surrounding them. SE11 has got off lightly because of the historic nature of its buildings, but poor Elephant and Castle is about to be dwarfed. So if you want the rocket monstrosity meant for Battersea, put it in Canary Wharf, not Battersea. I do not object to new housing, but I don't understand why new housing has to be very tall skyscrapers. Such skyscrapers are simply not designed to promote community or shared life, and I think that they're a really bad idea.

3. If the height of the building were not bad enough, there is the beautiful power station to consider. Would anybody really contemplate building the rocket next to Buckingham Palace, or Big Ben? No. Of course not. But because this is South London, and the area is in need of regeneration, it's considered that anything goes...

I really am in favour of the tube station at Battersea, (although I have no idea how long it might shut Kennington tube and/or the Northern line for) and in favour of regeneration (if it can be proven to benefit the disenfranchised of Battersa), but that building is too large a price to pay.

And finally... I discovered a really great little map, posted by somebody on the Urban75 forum, which shows all of the proposed transport links in London by 2016 if, by some miracle all of the funding were secured. The proposed Cross River Tram line is in a groovy purple colour.