The controversial closure of Offley Works and Starlight Academy's move to Peckham

In March 2009, the Guardian's Dave Hill published a piece on the potential closure of Offley Works, an LDA building in Oval.  Offley Works is in the middle of Offley Road and it housed, amongst other projects, the Starlight Academy, a non-profit youth programme designed to provide young people with skills in performance and drama, and potentially enable them to build a career in the music industry.  The closure of the site for redevelopment would have meant that Starlight and similar groups were without a home.  Fortunately, the Starlight Academy gained a reprise in 2009 (mostly due to an unfavourable economic climate, which put off impending building works) and were granted permission to stay for another year.  In February 2010 (just as the lease was up), a new lease was offered, but it was felt that this did not grant the Academy or Code 7 (a gang intervention project) enough security so they refused to sign.  The projects held fast in the Works until October 2010, when the LDA filed for possession, payment for continued occupation building at £878 per day(!) and court costs.  Starlight claim that by the time the LDA had got their act together to help them move, there was not enough time to raise necessary funds to finance their move.  It seems that on Friday 7th January 2011, the repossession order was enforced.  Rather worryingly, the judge also upheld the decision to regain the huge occupation costs against Starlight and Code 7, which threatens (from what they've said) to leave them bankrupt.

I received an email to say that the building was boarded up some time over the weekend.  Happily the Starlight Academy have found another home in Southwark, down at Peckham Settlement in Goldsmith Road (it doesn't mention Code 7, and there's nothing on their website, so I hope they're ok).  Starlight's new site needs repairs, and they're seeking help from the LDA, Southwark Council and the public to raise money.  What's not so clear is where any of the other projects housed within Offley Works might have gone.  Perhaps they've just faded away, or maybe they gave up some months ago.  I'll update this post if anybody can supply additional information.

Small local charities are part of Our Leader's Big Society vision, but they struggle to get a hearing.  Watch one of Boris Johnson's finest moments, caught on camera by Code 7, here, as he refuses to enter into discussion and brushes Code 7 off on to James Cleverley.  Mr Cleverley agreed to meet Code 7, but was later uncontactable.  I wish I'd heard news of the possession order prior to closure, since I believe these small projects are vital for promoting social cohesion, building the confidence of young people and providing them with a constructive space, instead of the streets, to  learn new skills.  I don't know whether our hyper-local blogs influence decision makers, but I can tell from various Lurking about SE11 stats that people from the LDA, London Transport and even the Houses of Parliament do visit, and we've seen encouraging progress on other matters by campaigning from local organisations such as the Kennington Association.  Please do email me if you are aware of other organisations under threat so that we can share local knowledge and work together to sustain our community.  Through sharing news, I hope we can figure out who is worth supporting. In the interests of fairness and balance, I should note that the Evening Standard published a damning piece on both Code 7 and Starlight back in June 2009 when it alleged:

"Starlight claims it has provided arts outreach training for young people at risk since 1997, and in Lambeth since 2006. However, there are no current courses shown on its website. Its listed telephone number is a mobile which was switched off, and it failed to respond to emails from the Evening Standard posing as a would-be student asking about outreach courses"

I don't have any insider information on this matter, and it should of course be noted Starlight and Code 7 came under Ken Livingstone's remit, so it's not surprising that the new administration under Boris are reluctant to give them air time.  Whatever the truth of the matter, it's clear that Starlight have a strong enough project that they've been given a home in Southwark.

The LDA have their own plans for Offley Works.  Apparently it will be redeveloped as "an employment-led mixed use scheme".  I'm unclear on whether that means residential live/work unit flats (which usually end up just being converted into flats) or some type of business park (a strange use since Kennington Park Business Centre and the Co-op centre in Mowll Street have available units).  The buildings are in a considerable state of disrepair and do need work, but this possession order business does not seem to be the best start for this LDA project.  Design for London have a good photo of the building (and surrounding area) from above.

Pedal Power review of Cycle Hire and superhighways from London Assembly Transport Committee

The  London Assembly Transport Committee has released its report, Pedal Power and an accompanying set of survey highlights, on the topic of TFL's Cycle hire (aka Boris/Ken bikes) and the TFL superhighways.

Kennington gets a mention under the "initial issues" of the Cycle hire section on p18:Hopefully we should see improved service in Kennington if Lambeth Council are successfully granted planning permission for the new docks around Albert Embankment, Cleaver Square and Kennington and Oval tube stations etc.  Thanks to Prince's Ward Councillors, who've provided full feedback from Dawn Rahman and a comprehensive review of the suggested docks in the area, and comments upon whose suggestions were taken forward.  Unfortunately, a number of suggested docks were outside of the current zone (although it's unclear where the boundaries lie).  Considering the lack of tubes further south in London, I hope we'll see the scheme extended in the future. Oval/Vauxhall seems an arbitrary cut off and demonstrates a lack of interest by the Mayor in South London infrastructure.

The Pedal Power report, also reviewed the Cycle Superhighways (CS7 runs through Kennington/Oval), and rather alarmingly states:

"Although the cycle superhighways are designed to provide safer cycling routes, it is not clear the pilot routes are achieving this." p27

and

"Whilst in some places there are full advance stop lines of 5 metres depth and mandatory cycle lanes of 2 metres width, elsewhere there are just narrow ‘ghost’ lanes (sections of blue paint without any legal status). However, it is most concerned that there are virtually no measures to reduce motor traffic volumes or speeds." p27

I was very excited about the announcement of the Cycle Superhighways, but despite my initial enthusiasm, back in May 2010, I noted that "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".

And indeed, on p28, Sustran conclude of the two initial pilot superhighways (CS7 and CS3), "the greatest barrier to Londoners cycling, or cycling more, is fear of traffic yet the cycle superhighways generally follow busy arterial roads and provide no or minimal segregation from traffic. It therefore concludes that in their current form the cycle superhighways have limited scope to facilitate an uptake in cycling, particularly by new cyclists."

"There has been a lack of bikes and available docking points in certain areas, particularly at peak periods. The Committee’s survey revealed [ac lack of bikes and was a particular problem in Covent Garden, Holborn, Kennington, Westminster and Waterloo. One respondent commented: "There is a shocking lack of available docking points in Vauxhall and Kennington. Twice I had to cycle further than I had to travel from where I picked the bike up. Once I was told to take the bike home. Not fun to carry up 4 flights of stairs. I was charged £50…and told to wait 5 days for a refund.""

Bondway - Appeal against planning refusal (Part 1: Opening Statement)

The Bondway Tower planning appeal began on 20th July and was presented at Lambeth Town Hall.  Many representatives for the local community met (headed by David Boardman of Kennington Association Planning Forum) to prepare several lengthy documents and then  present them at the Appeal.  Viva Vauxhall mentioned the appeal a while ago, and the documents (which present a strong argument against the erection of the 149 metre Bondway Tower) are available on the Kennington Association Planning blog.

What I'm going to do in a series of blog posts is try to distill the contents of some of the Bondway documents.  The information that David Boardman and co. revealed through a Freedom of Information request from Lambeth is fascinating and I think readers should be aware of the sheer scale of the proposed Bondway development.  The Appeal campaign (mounted by many represenatives from the local community) has probably not received enough exposure, due to its necessarily dense and detailed documents.  I've tried to summarise the info. and only publicise the interesting bits, which will appear over the next week or so in a Bondway Appeal series.  My comments are in red.

Bondway Appeal Series, Part 1 (opening statement):
20th July - Opening Statement to the Bondway Enquiry Document:

The Vauxhall community has not been well served by the planning system.  The gyratory is despised by residents and TFL has failed to engage with the community about how it might be improved.  The Bondway developers hope to "repopulate" what they call a "traffic dominated backwater".  Boardman notes that the area is not in need of repopulation, but would benefit from regeneration. 

Following the Secretary of State's decision to allow the St George Wharf Tower (180m), it's inevitable that developers would want to build a cluster, but planning guidance is not clear how this should happen.  Planning documents are only available in draft eg. Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Planning Framework (VNEB), but have not been formally adopted.  The Kennington Association Planning Forum complained that there is no outline plan for the area, but were informed by the Bondway developers that one did exist, and had been used to write the Vauxhall SPD!  A FOI request forced Lambeth Council to reveal the document (named "Vauxhall Urban Design Study").  However, the Urban Design Study revealed a plan for a different cluster of buildings to the one in the VNEB report. 

Ok, if you're still with me (apologies for the acronyms), it appears that the VNEB (document commissioned by the Mayor of London) and the SPD (document commissioned by Lambeth Council) formulated two different plans of what a cluster of tall buildings in Vauxhall would look like.  Surprisingly (given Boris' view on tall buildings), the VNEB study suggested taller buildings in Vauxhall than the SPD study. 

Indeed, the SPD study suggested that the cluster be based around the Vauxhall Triangle / Vauxhall Cross site (that's Kylun's site) with Bondway Tower being shorter than it. Additionally, the Lambeth study (SPD) suggested 40% employment space, and Bondway developers have submitted plans for 10%. More crucially, the Mayor's Density Plan suggests that units should be built at 405 units per hectare.  The Design for London report gives a wider limit of 500 units per hectare.  Bondway Developers wish to house people at 1297 per hectare.  This would have serious consequences for residents living in the buildings, and one would imagine that tenants offered social housing would suffer the most (as they inevitably do in such developments).

Boardman noted that Bondway had not provided reasons for departing from providing the originally agreed percentage of social housing.   A concern was also raised about the negative impact the proposed Bondway tower would have on Vauxhall Park.  Additionally, Vauxhall Underground Station is at capacity due to gate line and escalator capacity (gates already have to be closed at times, during rush hour).  Finally, Lambeth (as a borough) has an Open Space deficiency.  Lambeth through the SPD had suggested that additional green space be added to the west of the Bondway site.  Bondway are in favour of this, but want it added using their neighbour's land.  The Kennington Association Planning Forum consider that Bondway should offer Section 106 funding for the purchase of such land, and that the Section 106 monies payable by the applicant should be a considerably larger sum than is ordinarily the case to buy land to mitigate the space deficiency.  They suggest the figure of £10 million.

Whatever happened to Vauxhall pier? (or when will Boris Johnson notice South London?)

Today I received a response from London Assembly member, Cllr Pidgeon about the historical representations she made re. a Vauxhall pier (once proposed outside St George Wharf), and the re-zoning of Kennington tube.  The tube re-zoning was covered thoroughly yesterday and can be summed up by saying, "Boris will not rezone Kennington or Bermondsey because the gainers would be South Londoners, and the losers would be North Londoners".

However, the matter of a proposed pier at Vauxhall has been rather forgotten, and deserves further investigation:

First, remember what Boris said about river trail in July 2008, when he was visiting Merton and Wandsworth:

"I was very pleased to have able to see for myself the opportunities that river transport can provide. The Thames is a great alternative to the bus or the Tube and fits very well with my administration's desire to see many modes of transport used to travel about London."

Secondly, remember what Boris said about river travel in November 2009 when he was Oysterizing the river:

"Our aim is for the Thames to become an integral part of London's transport network, which is why we're also working to provide clearer signage to the piers and services that are available, in order to make using the river much easier for Londoners and visitors to the Capital."

Clearly, Boris' river strategy does not seem to include putting Vauxhall on the river just yet.

Back in September 2009, Cllr Pidgeon raised, as follows::

"The LDA in the River Thames Pier Plan has indicated that a pier near Vauxhall Station as part of the St. George's Wharf development would bring significant advantages to the local area... while simultaneously reducing pressure on local [transport] services. Can you disclose (a) what progress, if any, has been made on facilitating the eventual construction of a pier at Vauxhall, and (b) whether discussions between TfL River Services, the LDA, the London Borough of Lambeth and the developers of St. George's Wharf have taken place over this proposal?

In his response, Boris disagreed that the River Thames Pier Plan indicated that a pier near Vauxhall Station would bring advantages (which makes me wonder about Cllr Pidgeon's choice of this document).  Boris quoted the plan here (see appendix G) which says:

"It is clear that public transport access to this site is already very good. The provision of an additional travel choice, in the form of commuter river services, would therefore bring about limited benefits, and is unlikely to be attractive in comparison with the frequency and journey times of the range of other modes available at Vauxhall Cross Interchange. 

The role of the pier in serving the leisure market is considered to be limited due to the lack of major attractions in the Vauxhall area. Leisure visitors travelling to London by rail are also unlikely to access the river via Vauxhall, with Waterloo station forming the most likely gateway into central London. Based on these potentially limited benefits for commuters and leisure visitors, the Pier Plan does not therefore advocate a pier at this location."

BUT... I went back and checked the River Thames Pier Plan.  What Boris didn't quote in his appendix, even though it's on the end of one of the paragraphs in question is:

"However, the potential role of River transport in serving the development proposals which emerge from Battersea/Nine Elms/Vauxhall Opportunity Area Planning Framework should be reviewed."

I can see this one working out really well.  What's the likelihood that nobody can secure funding for the Northern Line Extension to Battersea? Instead, somebody will have the bright idea that if we place a pier at Vauxhall and one at Battersea, we can transport commuters from Battersea to Vauxhall by boat, and then they can use the already over-crowded Vauxhall Station!

The Mayor's Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Planning document says...

p97, "New piers to be provided within the OA at appropriate locations i.e. at Battersea Power Station"

On p117 (and following), maps are provided with various pier locations on them, including Vauxhall.  However, suggestion for a pier at Vauxhall is nowhere explicitly stated in the document.

Waiting for the Nine Elms expansion is not satisfactory.  We're already looking at over-crowding at Vauxhall Underground station, which would indicate commuter demand is very high.  Additionally, the current expansion of residential developments on the Albert Embankment would mean that the pier proposed at Embankment Park Plaza Hotel could be built long before Nine Elms gets off the ground.  When is Boris Johnson going to notice South London?

New Covent Garden Market - the procurement begins - is it premature?

I'm not too sure about the timing of the announcement, given that the Mayor's Nine Elm Plan has had its deadline response extended until the end of this month (and therefore, the consultation is still technically under way), but the FT is reporting that Jonas Deloitte are already working on the procurement of a development partner, starting this week.

I realise that the New Covent Garden already finished their consultation, so I am perhaps wrong in thinking that, whilst the Mayor's plan is still being consulted on, the NCG people are rather premature.  However, given the current comprehensive objections/suggestions that I know will arise from the Mayor's consultation, I'd have expected them to wait until all of the responses had been submitted. 

What happens if an objection to the Mayor's plan is significant enough to affect the NCG Market?  Wouldn't the developers need to be aware of that before they begin bidding?

Brief note on KOV public meeting and Mayor's Plan

I was somewhat disappointed by the KOV public meeting this evening. There were some good representations made by local community members re. loss of industrial land for local employment. We heard about issues relating to the cost of building public transport (and how this may not help overcrowding on the Northern Line). There were notable remarks about the need for family accommodation and discussion about avoiding high density residential housing. There were comments from various locals who are not in favour of high rise buildings and a high degree of concern about the lack of open space in Lambeth. Somebody wanted to know whether the consultation would even go anywhere, and how local concerns would really be heard and a local resident was concerned that the local estate was just seen to exist to 'do something for' in a kind of ghetto. A number of people had read and commented on the whole document (well done!), and I'm hoping their preliminary remarks might be published soon... I had hoped to write something myself, but the document is huge, and there may be too much to say.

The man from the Mayor's Office seemed disappointed with (most of) the residents, who weren't impressed by the plan, and he wants to hear alternative ideas because, as he said (and I tend to agree), the developers will just proceed inevitably because, as somebody else said, Lambeth are just a huge soft touch when it comes to granting planning permission. I wanted to ask why Lambeth Council have to consider planning permission requests before the Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document is even finished, but it all seemed a bit pointless because everybody knows that money talks loud.

A number of local politicans spoke (Kate Hoey dropped in, which should be noted, since I'm sure there are less depressing evenings to be had), but none of the politicians or residents really sounded convinced that this inevitable lumbering project could be persuaded to change direction. Some people even seemed to think that the cost of transport would cause the developers to increase the density further, and one person said the proposed development would place a population the size of Welwyn Garden City in one sixth of the space.

Participation in the evening (as with many other consultations) seemed unrepresentative. I spotted no BME residents at all this evening (surely that must be wrong... this is Lambeth). There were too many bumbling old people who just burbled on and took ages to get to any semblance of a point (but that's just public meetings, I guess). A sense of defeat hangs heavily in the air (but that might just be my mood).

The Mayor's office want comments, but didn't invite the audience to visit County Hall and sit around the table and start drafting documents. I don't know who believes that it is possible to make any kind of difference. Everybody knows that something needs to happen in Nine Elms. There is a haven of opportunity in front of us, but nobody seems to think it's an opportunity for them.

Ahh well, tomorrow is another day.

Nine Elms Mayor's Plan - Public Meeting Tonight

Just wanted to send out a quick reminder that there is a public meeting tonight at St Peter's Church (Vauxhall) - 310 Kennington Lane, which begins at 18:30 for a 19:00 start to discuss the Mayor's Plan for Nine Elms. At the last meeting, there were representatives from the Mayor's office to present the plans, and I imagine a similar presentation will take place. It's organised by Kennington Oval Vauxhall forum.

The last meeting was huge (and I suspect this one will be quite large) since there are a lot of positive and negative comments that people wish to make about the development.

Cycle Superhighway CS7 - blue paint oil slick to hit SE11

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but can't find it in my archives. Part of Boris' masterplan for London is to build a bright blue cycle lane around central London (rather like a sort of environementally friendly version of the M25), with arterial roads leading in from far flung places (such as Balham). Each of the routes is to be called a Cycle Superhighway, but in reality, it will just be lots of (hopefully) well-maintained streaks of blue paint across certain London roads! (I am quite excited, really! I might even start cycling to work!)

The best news is that the first one to be built is going to arrive from far flung Merton, Balham, Clapham etc. and zoom into SE11 past the Oval, up Kennington Park Road, past Kennington tube and provide (at last), a safe route around the Elephant and Castle roundabout. It will go over Southwark Bridge and take you safely to the City. Check out the exact route here.

The piece of paper in my letterbox informs me that the work is due to begin "early in 2010" and that it will be launched in Summer 2010! When it starts, we'll be able to see construction works here, but in the meantime, there's just a Boris video about how much fun it will all be!

Notice of a new KOV Nine Elms Discussion Meeting on 10th Feb at 19:00

Just a quick note to say that I've received notification of a new KOV meeting to be held on 10th February at 19:00, which will take place at St Peter's Church, Vauxhall in order to discuss more fully The Mayor's Framework for Nine Elms. (Tea and coffee will be available from 18:30, if you want to meet others there). At the previous KOV meeting on 19th Jan, a second meeting was requested in which the Mayor's Plan would be the only item on the agenda, so it looks as though that will now take place..

Also, it's worth noting that KOV (Kennington Oval Vauxhall Forum) have a new website here and will upload meeting notes there once available. They also have a new blog here, which I've added to my own blog roll on the right hand side of the screen.

The deadline response for comments on the Mayor's Plan has been moved back to 28th February 2010 so this ought to be a useful meeting to attend if you want to ask the Mayor's representatives some further questions before you make your own comments.

Boris' secret masterplan and Student accommodation in Vauxhall

Thanks to Markvauxhall on Twitter for the heads up re. yet another request for planning permission in Vauxhall (student accommodation). I'm surprised nobody raised it last night at the meeting, but it's only about four storeys high and the design probably won't be contentious (view the application here) and an external drawing here. We don't have much (any?) student accommodation in Vauxhall (not having a university on our doorstep), so in principle, there might seem to be no objection. (Students can hardly be more disturbing to residents than the late night revellers at Fire, can they?). What it would be useful to know is whether there will be any other requests for student accommodation. I mean, I can see that people would think that 92 student units are not a major problem, but how do we know whether there are more to come? Could there be 500 units or 1000 units, once the big buildings have gone up? Would that make Vauxhall a student hub, in the same way parts of Borough and Elephant will be?

As raised by several people at the KOV meeting yesterday, it seems that there is an ongoing issue pertaining to the requests for permission lining up with the Mayor's Plan for Nine Elms and the Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document. Each time a developer submits a request for planning permission for a new building, the transport and infrastructure questions are only considered for the building in question by the local council (in this case, Lambeth). Does this mean that the developers will keep having planning permission granted because "just one more building" won't affect the underground tube congestion? As long as Lambeth Council are seen to be proceeding on a building by building basis, there is less need for anybody to consider the overall area, and the effects that new buildings will have on older buildings and the surrounding townscape. Indeed, it's rather impossible for residents to object, approve or comment on each new building because it's so time consuming to work in this manner. Please could we consider multiple buildings and their effects on one another, before we have to comment on the next in the series?

It seems to me that nobody holds a master plan... Or perhaps they do... The problem is that the masterplan is secret. My journey to work reading this morning revealed that the Mayor knows something that we don't. Look carefully at p30 of the Mayor's Plan, which states, "In relation to the broad land use strategy, the planning framework estimates in the region of 20,000 - 25,000 new jobs in the Opportunity Area... This estimate is based upon the development capacity study and a review of planned schemes in the OA (which cannot be shared for confidentiality reasons). Does this mean that Boris Johnson holds a masterplan for the area, but can't tell us about it, in case local residents are able to orchestrate an effective campaign that will call for sensible building and community development, rather than "increased density" and "intensification"? How do local residents discover what the "planned schemes" for the OA are until we're given a very short amount of time to comment on them? And if we don't know how all of the buildings will fit together, how is the consultation meaningful?

Thanks for the comments on the earlier post. I do agree with the commentators that there are large parts of the area that would benefit from development and regeneration. Improved transport infrastructure in the area would be great for all Londoners. It is important that we retain industrial space for small businesses, that unattractive frontages be removed and replaced, that commercial space is balanced with residential space, and that residential space is properly mixed, with affordable housing being provided for workers and their families. All of this is good, and public discussion must ensue. Unfortunately, the Mayor's plan is about "potential sites" and "predicted heights", but we need to see a master plan of proposed developments in order to make useful comments and ask probing questions. Without that, it's as though everybody else is being kept in the dark.

Consider this a public request for transparency... Please.

KOV meeting fall out re. Boris and the Nine Elms plan

The last Kennington Oval and Vauxhall forum meeting I was present for was attended by about 20 people. Last night's meeting was closer to 200, and the entire agenda was derailed. Why? A small (heh) 174 page document from the Mayor, dated "November 2009" with the catchy title "Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework" (or OAPF) was presented by some people from the Mayor's office.

The OAPF is a major document from the Mayor about the future of a huge span of the river, detailing opportunities for the "intensification" of the area from Lambeth Palace to Battersea Power Station, and thus encompassing both the London Borough of Lambeth and the London Borough of Wandsworth. I am going to try and summarise that document over the next few days, and the Kennington Oval Vauxhall forum (KOV) have agreed to put on another meeting for local residents, in order to give people a chance to read the document. If you want to read the document without navigating the Mayor's site, click here.

Suffice to say, rather large numbers of people at last night's meeting were very cross. People felt that there had been little publicity about the documents or the consultation. The Mayor's office had not brought copies of the document with them to show people. The Mayor's office could not show views of the proposed buildings, as they would look from Stockwell or Vauxhall itself. The Mayor, it seems is in favour of tall buildings of up to 150m in Vauxhall itself. How tall is that exactly? Well, Strata (the big razor shaped on in Elephant and Castle) comes in at 147m, so that should give you an idea. Various questions were raised about family housing. How exactly are children meant to play, when they live on the 39th floor, you might wonder? The helpful man from the Mayor's office thinks this could be sorted by providing large gardens at the bottom of the flats, designing a new park, and possibly through the use of roof terraces! One lady was concerned about the increased traffic congestion. This is not a problem, the Mayor's office stated last night, because very little car parking is expected, so traffic shouldn't increase too much (contrary to what the document itself seems to say). This lead to questions about transport (the document is rather scathing about the fact that there is no currently viable finance scheme for public transport), so the audience were concerned to note that buildings should not be erected prior to public transport being in place. (And who funds the public transport...? That would be the private developers.) So, somebody asked, how will the transport infrastructure be in place before planning permission is granted for the new buildings? Sadly, being the Mayor's office, and not Lambeth/Wandsworth Council, they couldn't really answer because (as somebody else noted), buildings such as 81 Black Prince Road have been granted planning permission already, on the basis that there is plenty of accessible public transport. The Lady from the Mayor's office did state that public finance initiatives (rather than just the developers) would be investigated re. funding public transport. One lady was concerned that she couldn't get on the trains at Vauxhall underground station at the moment, so how was it really going to be possible to do so when the 20,000 - 25,000 proposed jobs had been added to the area? A local vicar wanted to know whether there any thought had been given for small shops in the Opportunity Area? Another man wanted to know how the "green link" would work, and which bridge the Cycle Superhighway would cross. The best explosion came from a lady from one of the Vauxhall Tenants Associations who demanded to know why nobody had been informed with letters through their door and other information etc. about the project. Well, quite. A very good question. One gentleman was very upset about the American Embassy getting to dictate the terms of their presence in the area, and generally turning the road into a "no through zone". And finally, a young man who somebody thought might be a candidate at the next election was very cross on behalf of everybody in the room, that nobody had been consulted, and that everybody was rather angry. Lots of people clapped. Somehow, I doubt that this will lead to a series of Lambeth Tory victories, but one never knows...

Many of the questions asked are actually answered in the document, but they are couched in strange planning jargon. "Intensification" means, for example, "how to cram more people into a small place". But as I mentioned above, I will try and do a summary of the document so that you know what the Mayor is proposing.

There was lots of shouting, and protests, and objections at the meeting until eventually I felt rather sorry for the Mayor's representatives. Somebody seemed to remember that Boris did once oppose tall buildings, but nobody was quite sure that they had remembered correctly. The main problem is that the Mayor's office just sent people to do the presentation (the kind of people who get excited about anaerobic digestion opportunities at the new market), and everybody at the meeting wanted to know how to pause the plan in its tracks in order to consult everybody. It's quite clear the area will be redeveloped in some ways, but since it's Lambeth/Wandsworth that grants the planning permission, and the developers that have the money, everything generally continues at their pace, and not the pace of the residents.

I am very excited that the proposals might lead to a united group of Londoners getting together to talk sensibly about common good and transport infrastructure and town planning. But I am afraid that it will probably just result in the kind of frustration and disquiet that has taken place in Elephant and Castle.

Leave some comments if you were present at last night's meeting.

Further info on crossing the road at Vauxhall

You'll see on the post that I made a week ago, I reported that some of the traffic lights at Vauxhall would be re-phased so that pedestrian crossing times would be reduced. This is a general concern because Vauxhall is not the safest or easiest place to cross the road, even with current phasings.

I then wrote to both Caroline Pidgeon and Valerie Shawcross. Both responded quickly.

It appears that Caroline Pidgeon asked Boris Johnson whether London Boroughs would be consulted on the traffic light re-phasings back in March, and she specifically asked, "what will happen if boroughs object to a reduction in crossing times for pedestrians?". Boris responded by saying, "TfL has a statutory duty under the GLA Act to consult with the relevant borough officers before and after signal timings are changed and they always adhere to this".

Consequently, I wrote to ask the councillors whether the borough officers would consult the community. It appears, however, from my response from Caroline Pidgeon, that Boris' answer was incorrect re. the consultation of the Borough officers.

Caroline's answer is as follows:
"TfL does not (contrary to the Mayor’s statement) have a duty to consult on signals timings changes on their network (however signals timings must be within the limits set by DfT guidance).
If however TfL decides (voluntarily) to consult Lambeth it would be with our Traffic Manager (Thuraippah Sivalingam)."

So, effectively, TfL can rephase the lights without being statutorily required to consult the boroughs. There is no way for local residents to object.

It's all a teensy weensy bit totalitarian for my liking.

Crossing the road at Vauxhall Cross

Are you an older person who walks slowly?
Are you a person with disabilities that cause you mobility problems?
Are you a parent with small children who has to cross the road slowly?
Do you suffer from asthma/breathing problems related to pollution?

Well... let's hope you don't live in Vauxhall!

According to the Evening Standard, TFL are about to "re-phase" the traffic lights in many locations, including at Vauxhall Cross. This is "clever-speak" for covering up the fact that pedestrians will be given less time to cross the road in certain locations in order to increase "traffic flow" (which will inevitably increase traffic itself).

In the article, Alan Bristow (TFL director of traffic operations) notes "Our timing review programme is aimed at making life a little bit easier for everyone who uses a particular junction, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists." But I fail to see how reducing the time given for people to cross the road makes life in any way easier for pedestrians.

And Vauxhall, as we all know, is very pedestrian/cyclist friendly. Not.

I don't even know if it's possible to object to the rephasing of the traffic lights. Looks like it's one of Bojo's not so good ideas.

Quite helpfully, Valerie Shawcross (Labour, Lambeth and Southwark, London Assembly member) asked Boris about some of the re-phasings in March this year, although she asked about Wandsworth Road and not Vauxhall Cross. In response to one of her questions, Boris said: "TfL is discussing proposals for timing changes to junctions at Wandsworth Road, with the London Borough of Lambeth. I will ask TfL to write to you with the details once their discussions with Lambeth are concluded." I wonder whether they'll provide her with info. about Vauxhall.

In addition, Caroline Pidgeon (Lib Dem, Londonwide, London Assembly member) asked about whether London boroughs would be consulted re. changing the phasing on traffic lights and what would happen if the boroughs object to the reduction of crossing time? Apparently, TfL have a statutory duty to consult with "borough officers".

That raises the question:
a. Who are the Lambeth Borough officers that would be consulted on the matter?
b. Do the Lambeth Borough officers have a duty to consult the public?

I'll inform you of any updates.

Princes Ward elections - Political party watch

A quick roundup of where we are with the upcoming election:

1. Conservative candidate = Michael Poole-Wilson

Michael appears not to have his own website, but there's a new item about his selection on the Lambeth Conservative website here with a lovely comment from his mother, assuring us all that he grew up in the area. I'm not hugely sure that the campaign a photograph taken outside the Prince's Arms in Cleaver Square is the best way to appeal to the entire electorate in Princes Ward. As much as I am a fan of the pub, it might be deemed slightly exclusive. Cleaver Square is decidedly posh Kennington, but somebody has to campaign to keep those pint prices down.

Also, what manifesto is Michael actually putting forward? I'm not sure that being passionate about civil liberties is enough for Lambeth. Is there any more online literature of which I'm not aware? Any online literature will be brutally attacked and pulled apart (see below).

2. Labour candidate = Mark Harrison

Mark Harrison is definitely winning in the online presence stakes, since his party have their own blog. In case you've not seen the piece on his election, it's here on the Princes Ward labour blog and they've had lots of time to take photos. However, we think that Labour have a distinct advantage in that they've known that naughty Sam Townend was likely to stand down, and have had Mark as their "shadow" placement for quite some time now.

Anyhow, yesterday, whilst we were all enjoying the sun (or not), Mark was busy whipping up his anti-crime manifesto, which can be found here. A few comments...? Yes, I think so.

a. Who will actually be charged with putting the tags /on/ the dangerous dogs? Would you volunteer? If they're dangerous, they shouldn't exist in the first place. Do we wait for them to attack, and then tag them? Sounds a bit dubious to me. Is there an actual dangerous dog tagging procedure in place anywhere else in the country?

b. Where is Mark going to get the money to get the CCTV on the estates working again? I don't believe in money until I'm told what budget it will come from and who will authorise its release.

c. I will warn /anybody/ in this campaign right now to steer well away from anything related to the former Lilian Baylis School because I'm going to sit here behind my keyboard shouting "rhethoric" very loudly. Why?

The current Labour council have already declared their partners in the school to be: All Nations Church (ANC), Sports Action Zone (SAZ) and the Ethelred Nursery. That's public information, declared in February 2009 and found here. Any youth work will be ANC or SAZ related, but there isn't a "Plan B" for the former Lilian Baylis School, and the project is already quite advanced. Just try speaking with the council officer in charge of the project. The partners have been chosen, and that's that. Some of us are keen to know how the project will hold together, but if you have any more info, please inform me. So... What exactly does Mark propose when he suggests "Saving" the former Lilian Baylis?

d. I hardly think that Labour (or any political party) can act to prevent drug dealing in Lambeth. I presumed that that was up to the police.

e. I really like the idea of saying "no" to Boris' police cuts. See below, but it looks as though Mark is campaigning to prevent more job losses, which makes it look as though Mark is campaigning to prevent John losing his job!

In his favour, Mark actually does appear to have some policies, and to have given them some independent thought.

3. Liberal Democrat candidate = John Roberts

John appears not to have his own website, but there's a news item about his selection on the Vauxhall Lib Dem website here.

An anonymous contributor on the blog has written that they are surprised at John's standing because they have asserted that John might live in Whitstable and that he was kicked off the "MPA"? (I'm guess Metropolitan Police Authority) by Boris. It sounds like the slurs have begun. I've tweeted for a response from John, since the Lib Dems say that John lives on the Ethelred, but have so far heard nothing.

It seems to me that the Lib Dems are are a bit slow on the uptake with their campaign. Labour (if Twitter is to be believed) have been out canvassing for weeks. Let's have some firm and clear policies set out please, as it looks as though Labour have something of a head start, and one man campaigns are always rather tedious to report... I need something interesting to pick apart and since I've given Mark Harrison a good grilling, I need to give John Roberts a thorough roasting.

4. We've had no response from the Green Party in Lambeth to say whether there's anybody standing and I don't know whether there are any independents. Does anybody else know?

Cross River Tram is dead. Crossrail might die. Long live the tube?

I made reference, yesterday, to the fact that Lambeth Council had mentioned the Cross River Tram in their Local Development Framework. I think, perhaps, that they forgot to remove it from the document because I doubt (sadly) that the scheme will ever come to fruition.

Today though, I spotted a rather interesting article article in the Evening Standard. The writer, Simon Jenkins, suggests that Boris should kill off Crossrail. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the "limited pot" (now "empty pot") of public money, one always knows that some Londoners will benefit through certain initiatives whilst others won't benefit at all (or will even become worse off). The Crossrail project is one example of a piece of transport that doesn't benefit South London at all. Due to my love of all things public transport, I'm not in a position to oppose it, but Simon's article has made me wonder... Apparently, TfL are close to bankruptcy, and unlikely to stump up their share of cash for Crossrail. If Boris were to eradicate the Crossrail project to plug the hole in his transport budget, Simon wonders whether he'd choose to plough that money into the tube.

The spare money in the pot from ditching Crossrail would be £5.6 billion.

And it was only the other day, (reported in Southwark News here) in early March at the London Assembly that Boris suggested "the potential of extending the Bakerloo Line for instance... is something we should drag onto the agenda". Do we think that any of the spare £5.6 billion could be channelled towards improving the tube connections in South London? It would be great to connect Camberwell, Peckham, Lewisham, Croydon and Brixton. How much does it cost to add tube stations and extend the lines? It certainly wouldn't cost that much to re-open Camberwell tube since the infrastructure is in already.

That would be a project which would mean South Londoners could stop asking "What has Boris ever done for us?"

Cross River Tram: It's all over...

Further to the post made earlier, I've just spotted the news item on SE1 effectively reporting that Boris has axed the Cross River Tram.

TFL says it's due to the lack of funding.

Have a look at the London-SE1 article.

I'm too angry at facing this inevitability that I don't think I can face writing anything else at the moment.

Edit: I wonder if it's worth organising a protest.

Thames Festival 2008

The three wheeled one only found out about the Thames Festival by accident this year after wondering about the vast hordes of people making their way through Waterloo yesterday. This might (or might not) be due to Boris Johnson (BoJo) scrapping The Londoner (the newspaper that supplies Londoners with information about what the mayor is up to). On the other hand, chances of us actually receiving the newspaper are slim!

So... Excited about the possibility of the giant meal with strangers (and happy to try and meet some more South Londoners), we plodged off today, beginning towards the east end of the festival near Southwark Bridge. Unfortunately, I had not realised that the giant meal only took place yesterday and would not be repeated today. Not to be deterred, we obviously had to go and nosey around at what else was on offer...

The rest of the festival consisted of food stalls (many over-priced), stalls selling pictures of London, music stages (I presume some of it /was/ music), the Co-Op selling Fairtrade goods (yay), the BBC doing something related to art for children, various European cultural promotion/food stalls, a giant stage put together by those people who manage to get around London without touching the floor (it's called "freerun" apparently), the BBC and Capital FM broadcasting, lots and lots of performance artists, some people kayaking on the Thames (not sure if these were part of the kayaking demonstrations), old and young men skulling along the Thames (separately), some rather strange performance drama, free Starbucks coffee, more stalls selling everything from books to clever widgets for hanging flower pots...

We were queuing to buy Hog Roast after arriving at lunchtime (around 2pm), but that failed because the Hog Roast wasn't on offer until 5pm. Driven by impending starvation and lack of money, we ended up sharing a Doggett's cheeseburger after concluding that despite Lebanese food being good value for £5 a plate, it just appeared too expensive. I figure that for people visiting London, the prices must just be swallowed, but for actual Londoners facing impending recession, the costs are all too high!

We walked from Southwark Bridge to the London Eye (I'm not sure what was beyond the Eye, if anything) and enjoyed browsing at the varied stalls. We discovered a world film/DVD shop (named mdc music and movies) that we didn't know existed (which wasn't part of the festival) and generally had a happy time soaking up the sun. I think the festival lacked some edge (there were parts of the South Bank that didn't seem to have much going on) and it didn't seem much different from festivals of previous years. However, that won't stop us going next year!

As we left, we saw some people that appeared to be preparing for a carnival procession (in some fabulous outfits), which (if it was a repeat of previous years) would have taken place this evening. We headed home after about 3 hours, and then happily watched an absolutely stupendous, amazing, fantastic, glorious, expensive, colourful fireworks display from our home in SE11. The fireworks were so good that we might have to invite lots of people around next year just to watch!

Cross River Tram - more news

We've not yet reached the crucial date of 8th September, but Boris Johnson appears to have announced to a committee:

I am not intending to spend a lot more money on the Cross River Tram

SE1 news have the full article.

I'm still rather hoping that this doesn't mean the project has been axed. I'm hoping Boris will say that he doesn't plan to spend more money on the Cross River Tram until he receives a committment from central government to fund it... or something...

Caroline Pidgeon has made adequate disappointed noises, but I really wish that there was something else that could be done.

Cross River Tram - we have a date

My "Cross River Tram" alert popped up a BBC article today to reveal the date crucial for whether the tram project goes ahead: September 9th.

The article contains a fabulous quote from Caroline Pidgeon who is upset that it takes longer to get to central London from Peckham than it does from Reading. I wonder whether that's because the people in Reading have more money... :-)

"It can take longer to get from places like Peckham to the centre of town than it does to get to places like Reading, and that is just ridiculous,"

she said.

Unfortunately, some councillors north of the river aren't so excited about our trammy ambitions :) But that's because they're all lucky enough to own and drive cars.

Anyhow, 9th September is when the tram review is to be undertaken by Boris Johnson. Here's keeping our fingers and toes crossed.

Cross River Tram - a furthur update

I've just spotted a new post on London SE1 forum to advertise a seminar hosted by the Greater London Authority to consider the Cross River tram in light of current mayoral priorities.

Unfortunately, being mid-house move and working flat-out, the three wheeled person can't easily take the morning off, for the sake of attending the seminar. It would be great if lots of home-working / retired / flexi-time people could be present to give support and make a constructive noise.

It's possible to provide written submissions. I wonder if one has to be important (or represenative of some important body) so to do.

I'm uninformed on the structure and politics of the GLA, so I don't know whether this an officially mayor promoted/sanctioned event, or whether it's an attempt to stall for time, or quite what the purpose of it is. However, some of the panel of speakers look quite interesting, especially the one speaking on the business perspective from Camden, which (I think) sounds like a Tory / Boris Johnson type line of thought.