Michaela Free School debate continued: A non-meeting of minds... (Part 1)

A discussion meeting (organised by the Kennington Association for local residents) about the proposed Michaela Free School on the former Lilian Baylis site was held two weeks ago on 18th July.  Apologies that this write-up has been delayed, but it's well worth reading, if only for a couple of dramatic flare-ups in the meeting, on account of most participants arriving with firmly entrenched views.   [Part 2 of the writeup containing local resident questions and answers is here too.]

I was hoping that I'd be able to present a clear Lurking about SE11 opinion after the meeting, but that seems difficult on account of one or two rather major factual disagreements, as you'll see.  There were the pro-free school people who, (other than one lone parent) arrived to support team-hooray-Michaela.  Then there were the anti-free school people, made up of a loose and disparate band of local councillors and angry teachers or union people.  These shall be known as team-angry-people.  As usual, there was odd-ball ranting, and general off-topic rambling, but Anna Tapsell, who was chairing the meeting for Kennington Association, managed to ensure that everybody had a chance to speak.

Katharine Birbalsingh (KB) initially introduced two other members of the steering-group, Daisy Christodoulou (a teacher) and Ndubuisi Kejeh (a former Lambeth school student).  She then offered a brief summary of the plans.  The steering group, we learned, exists as a group of teachers, parents and ex-Lambeth school pupils who all are "deeply committed" to state-education.  What they like about free schools/academies is that power can be devolved down.  The steering group, we heard, want to give parents another choice of school in Lambeth.  KB also noted that the Michaela bid has been submitted to the government.  I'd advise you to visit the Michaela Free School site for more info. as this post is long enough already!  We learned briefly that the proposed school plan to offer the Baccalaureate (on account that it provides a broad foundational knowledge on which to build skills).  KB stressed that "traditional knowledge is important".  We also heard several times about the plan to implemented an extended school day, since this would provide an opportunity for additional subjects such as  Mandarin Chinese, media-awareness and literacy etc.  It was again stated that Kate Hoey had offered her support, and I also found that in print in the Evening Standard.

Next up, we heard from Ndubuisi Kejeh (a willing poster boy) who was taught at secondary school by KB.  At university, he studied electrical engineering, was the chair of his university's political philosophy society, set up an NGO and is now working to meet future energy needs sustainably.  He asked KB if he could be on the steering group and has acted as a mentor to children in primary and secondary school.  The parents of Kejeh's mentors claimed that State education faces the issue of narrowing options.

After that, Katharine Birbalsingh was given about half an hour to present the school proposal and to address potential criticism.  She was quite clear that the steering group's heart had been set on Lambeth because there is a "huge shortage of places", both at primary and secondary level in Lambeth.  This year, apparently 452, year 6 Lambeth children did not get a place at a Lambeth secondary school.  "That's not true" interjected Cllr Harrison, but his right of reply came later. The steering group and volunteers have handed out 20,000 leaflets at Brixton market and around Lambeth and have had another 20k printed.  Birbalsingh observed that free schools were set up on the basis of charter schools in the US to transform education in the inner-city.

Working on the rough figure of 450 children without places (which will be disputed), Birbalsingh suggested that the Michaela School would  only offer 120 places at Year 7, and suggested that there'd still be a shortage of some 300 places in Lambeth.  Additionally, she acknowledged peoples' views that the shortage is more severe in south Lambeth, but noted  there aren't any suitably-sized school sites in the south.  I was certainly impressed by the manner in which Birbalsingh stated her case...  "If the former Lilian Baylis site is sold to a developer for flats, it would be a great shame because the one opportunity that Lambeth has to establish a secondary school that is desperately needed, would be taken away.", she lamented.  And indeed, one might concur, especially if there is an enormous shortage of sites at present.

The only problem, according to KB, is that Lambeth Council  asked for bids on the former Lilian Baylis site to be submitted by 5th July, but the government, on behalf of the Michaela steering committee can't put a bid in until September, because they won't hear whether they have approval until then.  That seemed to me to be a rather major flaw in the Michaela Free School proposal, but then, it's not clear that the Council can sell off the site immediately either (which became clear later).

"Free Schools", Katharine Birbalsingh offered, "work as a gift to the community."  That's because the money to fund them comes from central government.  (Mind you, it's all tax at the end of the day...)  It was acknowledged, however, that if the proposed Michaela  Free School were to take children from local schools, those schools would lose out on account of receiving less money per head.  Note that point carefully.  It will matter later.  Much of the argument is predicated on the notion that there is a "huge surplus of children and a shortage of places", which means that Birbalsingh was happy to announce that an extra school would soak up existing local children, with the added benefit that Lambeth would receive a huge injection of cash from central government.  Still following?  There is, of course, the added issue that the huge injection of cash might not be so huge on account of a compulsory purchase, but we'll come to that.

Birbalsingh has a natural gift for anticipating opponents' arguments.  "You might make the argument that a developer would pay more money than central government for a school", she suggested.  That's just what I'd been thinking.  But here she proposed that because the building is listed and has a considerably reduced price-tag, central government might have a chance to compete.  I'm still rather sceptical about that.  Later we learned that central government would only be offering about £2.5 million for each school site, and I'd be more than happy to bet that even despite listing, the former Lilian Baylis site is worth well over £8 million.  But that little question did not arise, and Birbalsingh continued to sell the Free School...

The question the public need to ask, according to Birbalsingh is "whether we'd  prefer the site be sold to developers" or used by a school?  (Note that when politicians present either/or options, there are usually more possibilities to be considered).  At this point, nearly all of team-angry-people, who might normally be in the anti-developer camp looked as though they'd happily sell!   But just as the cogs in the brains of those present were springing into motion, Birbalsingh had moved on to "why Lambeth?"  After all, apparently some enthusiastic people had said "why go to Lambeth?  Go to a Conservative borough".  Birbalsingh even claimed that some Conservative boroughs are purchasing sites for Free School use.  So, why Lambeth?  Apparently, the steering committee chose Lambeth because ordinary people "who don't have the option" live here.  Birbalsingh felt that if Free Schools try to open up in the poorer areas, they're "hounded out".  I felt there was a certain mood of "woe-is-us" and martyr mentality on this point, and it's tied in with the whole "the rich are trying to keep us out" Telegraph column, but who knows, perhaps she's right.

This lead to a suspiciously Conservative-party sounding speech about how poorer children should have the same opportunities as richer children.  (And really, who in their right mind would disagree with this?  The question is how or whether to let market forces dictate the quality of education to which children are entitled...)  But, there was no time for theoretical debates, since we learned that belief in poorer children is why team-hooray-Michaela have been "in the rain... marching around constantly" handing out leaflets to "ordinary" (note... loaded word, that) parents.

There was a brief detour to suggest that that free schools and  academies are nearly the same.  Presumably, this removes the teeth from the arguments of local people who might be opposed to free schools.  Lambeth seems to have a fair number of academies (or planned academies).  Birbalsingh was big on "freedom" and "choice".  Academies and Free Schools "have the same freedoms".  That apparently means "freedom from" local authority to do what you think is best for your community of children.  It meant that an extended school day could be offered.  The steering committee are concerned about Lambeth children leaving school at 3:30pm to go and hang out in chicken shops. Birbalsingh felt that keeping them until 5pm meant they would be likely to do that.  (Again, it's not really possible to disagree here, but I'm not clear about whether ordinary schools aren't free to extend their days, as I know very little about education).  We were also told that the proposed Michaela school would hold media awareness classes "because young black boys look at MTV and think they want to be a gangster or a rapper".  I felt this was something of a racial stereotype.  Young boys (whatever their colour) want to be footballers and celebrities...  But you get the general gist of where the argument was going.  So, this interlude finished with the assertion that if you're against free schools, then to be consistent, you should be against academies too.  I hadn't entirely figured out why anybody would be against either, but I think I wasn't necessarily part of the target audience.  Nobody expects the Lurker, after all. 

Next, Birbalsingh rounded off the previous argument by point out that Lambeth already has academies and are converting schools into academies when an audience member interjected, "they're being forced to".  Yes, it was acknowledged that some teachers who may be being forced into it, but the heads are not...  So there appeared to be lots of political hot potatoes being thrown around, which will be tricky to understand if you're not familiar with the inner-workings of the education system.

At that point, Anna Tapsell interjected with the first question about local people knowing that the former school site wasn't currently safe for children, and wondering whether the money for the capital project would come from.  Birbalsingh was confident that the money would come from central government who would buy the building from Lambeth and provide money for refurbishment.  (I'm sure I read a Council document that suggested it needed £10 million worth of repairs...).  Anna Tapsell further pressed the point about whether it was refurbishable, and Birbalsingh admitted it was out of the steering committees' hands, and up to Partnership for Schools to decide.

Birbalsingh had clearly done her homework on the likely voting patterns of those present, and was doing everything to avoid being tarred with the Conservative brush.  She noted that some people had asked how free schools could be good if they're a Conservative idea?  But she quickly batted that back and suggested that Academies emerged from Labour (supported by Kate Hoey, MP), and Free Schools are basically the same, ergo, they couldn't be all bad.  Lots more impassioned pleas about "freedom to do what's right for their children" were added.  Also, more on "ordinary families" being "desperate" for a new school.  Birbalsingh distanced herself from the Conservatives, "I'm not a Conservative.  I'm not." and clarified that she believed that "the black community" (and then everybody) should be floating voters.

Anna Tapsell asked about the submission process.  The bid has apparently already been submitted.  The interview will be in August.  It is  possible that the Michaela Steering Committee will go for interview and not pass it.  If the interview is passed, Partnership for Schools will write a report on the school's viability.  If the school isn't viable, Michaela Free School "may be forced" to go to another London Borough.

I will leave Part 1 (a whole post dedicated to Birbalsingh's argument) with her final offering and summation:

You may feel that for yourselves, or your children, that the school is not right for your children.  That's fine and your choice, but would you want to stop others?  I myself, have nothing to gain personally from it.  When I ended up in the media, people said, that I wanted a political career and doing things in government, but I didn't go there.  I'm not and I'm here talking to you about a school because my heart is in education.  I continue to speak of education. It's hard.  From my perspective, you should know that it's not easy being me. 

Part 2 of the Michaela Free School debate continued provides a summary of all of the points, questions and clarifications made in response to Katharine Birbalsingh's speech above.

New Foodbank in Vauxhall

It depends on one's politics as to whether the appearance of food banks in the UK is to be, in and of itself, commended.  Some will not celebrate the arrival of a food bank in Vauxhall because they believe the State should ensure that food is plentiful for all in the UK.  Others, perhaps with Big Society or mutualist views would see that charitable-sector provision of services for people in need is preferable, as it removes costs and bureaucracy.  I'd argue that services that cater for those the wrong side of the UK's income-gap, whatever your view on how such services are provided, are an important indicator that one lives in a shared society, rather than a free-for-all market.  So... last week I requested more information from a group who have set up a food bank in Vauxhall.

Vauxhall Foodbank is part of the Foodbank Network started by the Trussel Trust, a Christian Charity.  They've rented a room from London City Mission's Vauxhall Christian Centre to run a food bank / cafe for the redemption of food vouchers.  "Clients" can redeem vouchers (given out by children's centre workers, GPs, housing association officers, religious workers and school outreach officers) for 3 days worth of free, non-perishable food.  Food is collected from local churches, businesses, schools and individuals.  Also, the Vauxhall Foodbank team gain donations by by standing outside local supermarkets asking their customers to buy one extra item from the foodbank shopping list.  Sainsbury's customers reportedly thanked Customer Services for the collection and wanted to know if there would be another (as reported to me by a Vauxhall food bank volunteer), but I'd be interested in the views of locals.  Have any of you been asked to donate?  Do you welcome the initiative?  Have you received food vouchers or parcels?  Do you know of anybody that might benefit?

All of the food bank workers are volunteers (about 40 people are involved assembling food parcels and chatting with clients etc.), and the cafe is open on Saturdays between 11:30am - 1:30pm.  The volunteers eventually intend to open on Wednesdays as well (same time).  The first client (surely "guest" might be better?)  arrived on 25th June, and 69 people have been fed to date. 

According to Lambeth's draft Poverty Reduction Strategy (p16), 37.5% (18,615) of children in the Borough are classified as living "in poverty".  (This is the percentage of children who live in families in receipt of out of work benefits where reported income is 60% below the median national average. That is classified at £294 per week for a couple with two children under 14 or £225 per week for a lone parent with 2 children under 14.  All figures calculated before taking housing costs into account.)  In Princes' ward, approximately 43% of children live in poverty, Oval has approx 41% of children in poverty, and Bishops' has 40% of children in poverty (p36).  About 21% of children Lambeth (p32) (12,000) could be living in severe poverty, which means that income is below £134 for a lone parent with one child, and below £240 per week for a couple with two children).  At the current rate of inflation, the need for extra food help to supplement household income is evident.

At present, most volunteers attend ChristChurch London in Blackfriars, but the services of the foodbank are offered to those of all faiths and none and they welcome support, donations and volunteering from everybody.  There will be a launch later this summer, which will receive mention here.

Michaela Community School: Kennington Association to hold Public Meeting concerning proposal

I've stayed out of the Michaela Free School debate so far due to a short break from blogging and because I felt that I didn't have enough solid information to make an informed post.  At present, it's not clear where the proposed school would be situated or whether any funding has been agreed for the proposed opening in 2012.  Yesterday, however, I wrote a long  post on the protest concerning the retention of the Shelley site (something that was raised at the last KOV meeting and which I've been tracking closely), which unfortunately has not yet received any comments, except to ask my views on the Michaela Free School!! So...

A representative from Michaela emailed me in May, requesting that I publicise the Michaela Free School website and noted that an open day would take place on the 21st May, which I had hoped to attend.  Unfortunately, the open day was cancelled at the last minute on 20th May, and I've not spotted a public meeting since.  Consequently, I was delighted to note that Kennington Association have seized the mantle and agreed to hold a public meeting to discuss the proposal on Monday (18th July), 7pm at Ethelred Estate Community Youth Club, 7 Lollard Street, SE11 6QH.  After that, Lurking about SE11 hopes to have enough information to put forward a reasoned response.

In the mean time, many of the arguments for the retention of the Shelley site can be marshalled for the Michaela Free School, mostly concerning the secondary school aged population projection within the next few years.  At present, Lambeth is unable to send all students that live within the Borough to Lambeth secondary schools, and has to ship them out of the Borough for secondary education.  In addition, the demand for secondary education will increase on account of the building due to take place on the VNEB developments, especially because the Vauxhall (and thus Lambeth) developments appear to being approved faster than the Wandsworth developments.  Even worse, the VNEB proposals thus far do not appear to have accounted for a secondary school, so there is a clear argument (although perhaps the case is equally strong for Wandsworth) that additional secondary school places be provided for local students.  It's not clear (and seems unlikely) that the proposed Michaela School would have capacity for all of the additional students required across Lambeth (or Wandsworth), so it may be necessary for the council or free school trust to open one large new school or two/three smaller new schools.  Alternatively, (unless the LEA wishes to continue to send its pupils outside of the borough), some inventive means to expand current schools would need to be found (which should not include eating up local Playground space!).

The reason the Michaela School appears to have become so contentious is on account of its founder, Katharine Birbalsingh.  Birbalsingh made a speech at the October 2010 Conservative party conference about how she perceived the State to be failing to provide for the nation's children and to admit that she had voted Tory for the first time. Consequently, one can see how a slightly controversial start might have put some backs up in Lambeth, which is an entrenched Labour stronghold.  That, I suspect, is most likely the reason that some local hackles appear to have risen.

There is a Guardian article, outlining some of her views on State schools, written earlier this year and you can find further information about her from a comprehensive Wikipedia article.  Birbalsingh has written about 121 articles for the Telegraph (click "older entries" to read through the list), with the most recent article published today (just before Monday's meeting), on why she thinks middle class women on bikes (in Lambeth?) want to prevent working class children from receiving a good education.  It seems a tad impolitic to raise local backs further, before people have had a chance to hear about the Michaela School proposals, but presumably she hopes people will hear the free school ideas with open minds despite an article that appears deliberately provocative.  I am already wondering whether we're going to hear open and positive suggestions about Michaela free school from a diverse range of staff and parents or a Birbalsingh-only version of what Michaela Free School might look like.  The two are potentially quite different, so it's worth listening closely...

£588 million funding black hole in Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea infrastructure

Ok, so I've been a bit of a bad blogger recently, but sometimes I find I can't fit my real life work and spare time projects and activities into 24 hours so I periodically have to drop a few things. In light of all the cuts and planning and development etc. I'm going to try and catch up from where I stopped, so be prepared to be inundated for the next few days.

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.

6 people stabbed / shot on Vassall Road last night - When we needed the Big Society, were you there?

It's slightly south of the SE11 area, but I was horrified to read the SLP report of 6 people shot/stabbed on Vassall Road yesterday at about 21:30 yesterday.  The SLP also state that the youngest victim was 14, but this contradicts the following from Stockwell Park Neighbourhood Watch.

Stockwell Park Neighbourhood Watch have stated that two of the victims were stabbed at about 20:41 on Cowley Road.  An ambulance was called, and whilst the crew were attending, two youths on bikes cycled past and firde several shots on a hand gun.  Consequently, four additional people were injured.  None of the injuries are life threatening and the ambulance crew remained unharmed.  After initial assessment, the police believe the incident was gang related and that none of the victims were "neutral".  (I take that to mean that they were innocent bystanders).  The victims are said to be within the age range of 16-18.  No suspects have been detained and police presence in the area will remain high to deter further violence.

I regularly defend this part of South London as a safe place to live against voices to the contrary.  Violence around here is sporadic and usually not against innocent bystanders, but that doesn't excuse it. Sometimes  the distance between Cleaver Square and Vassall Road seems huge.  Lambeth Council currently spend money on youth and anti-gang activities, and yet such funding is at risk in our new Big Society.  Does the funding make any difference?  After each stabbing or shooting, I always ask, "what can we do?".  And I'll keep asking it because I don't want us to stop being shocked. 

As residents, bloggers, commuters and workers, what are our options to prevent young people from turning to crime?  What do we do about the disparity between the haves and have nots?  Is it disparity that is the problem here?  Are the residents who live in relative poverty having a chance to meet the residents who are affluent?  Where is the forum in which we can discuss these issues?  We have neighbourhood groups and residents associations, blogs, and newspapers, but how often do we meet people who are different from us?  Is our response to stay in after dark and to keep our heads down when we walk along our streets?  Do we know the young people in our midst, and how might our neighbourhood be a community that shares its gifts?

I maintain that these stabbings and shootings are not what define our area.  We're defined by our friendliness and our openness to celebrate and share cultural differences.  We're defined by the number of community groups and "friends of" groups that are regularly set up in our midst.  And then something like this happens, and we talk of youth, gangs, drugs, opportunities and education, but I'm not sure if we're seeing any change.  When we needed the Big Society, were you there, were you there?

For an 18th January update on this incident, please continue reading at Stockwell News.

Number of Lambeth residents affected by government's new housing cap

Back in June, I asked how many Lambeth residents would be affected by the rate cap introduced by George Osborne in the June 2010 budget.  I speculated that Lambeth would likely be affected by additional accommodation-seeking in-comers who could no longer afford Westerminster or Kensington and Chelsea.  I predicted that there would not be a mass exodus of families who received benefit over and above the new housing caps, but I was unsure, so I submitted a Freedom of Information request here.

And now the data is in... In Week 15 of 2010/2011, Lambeth were renting 24,378 properties to members of the public.  This figure does not include properties rented by tenants from private landlords paid for with housing benefits.

The number of Lambeth council households who are renting property from Lambeth Council or an affiliated Housing association or who are private tenants who claim Housing benefit over the amount of the George Osborne cap are as follows:

94 properties for 0-1 bedrooms where rent over £230
12 properties for 2 bedrooms where rent over £290
5 properties for 3 bedrooms over £340
39 properties for 4 bedrooms where rent over £400

That totals 150 households. Unfortunately, I can't provide a percentage of total Lambeth households affected because the figures for the rent exceeding the new cap include households renting privately from non-Lambeth landlords, but Lambeth haven't provided me with the number of households renting privately, only those who rent public housing. In any case, presuming that the 150 includes everybody renting privately (which has been confirmed to me in correspondence following the Freedom of Information request), it seems that the numbers of Lambeth residents affected by the cap are extremely low, which is good news. (I'm assuming that some of the people that receive more than the cap will be on the cusp eg. receiving £235 per week for a 0-1 bedroom property).

The Budget 2010 by George Osborne (Will Lambeth face an influx of house hunters?)

I was going to write a post two days ago about the budget, and how it would affect folks in SE11.  And then I realised, it wouldn't, at least not in the way I had first envisaged.  The effects of certain changes are likely to be very subtle.

Obviously, we'll all be hit by the rise in VAT to 20%.  Although it's worth noting that the charity, Save the Children, say "Poor families currently spend more of their disposable income on VAT than richer families, with the poorest 10% spending 14% versus 5% for the richest." so we won't all be hit in the same way.  But in general, the cost of household goods will rise.

My real concern was related to social housing in Lambeth.  The Local Housing Allowance is due to be capped (from 2011) so that those who rent one bedroom properties can claim a maxiumum of £230 per week and those that rent four (or more) bedroom properties can claim a maximum of £400.  I wondered whether there'd by a mass exodus from Lambeth as single people and families could not afford to rent subsidised housing whilst claiming housing benefit.  I was going to write an article on how it would effectively push people out of Lambeth, but then I realised it probably wouldn't.

The scandal is that very few local authorities are able to build social housing to keep up with the demand.  Of course, that I describe it as a "scandal" is already to state a political view.  The question of social housing is one that will inevitably become more greatly politicised due to shortages, with many people asking why some families should receive council / housing authority subsidised housing, whilst others have to pay market rates.  But historically Lambeth has always had and built a huge amount of social housing.  It seems (I think) that the current problem relates to demand (ie. the council list currently stands at 20,000) and not the cost of housing.

A little research of the Lambeth properties on the council list (for those with enough points to be able to bid for them) reveals that even the larger properties in Brixton (4 beds) and Oval (5 beds) are only marketed by the council at £120.92 per week and £174.29 per week respectively.  Oval is in a more northern section of Lambeth (and I'm presuming that the northernmost properties will be more expensive than those elsewhere), so whilst I accept that the Guardian's Jenny Jones may be correct when she asserts "Lambeth families can get up to £430pw", I really do have to wonder whether they're not perhaps living in 9 bedroom houses somewhere.  I doubt there are that many of them in any case.  I also looked into one bedroom properties to see if the £230 cap would present a problem for local people, but even there, it seems it's possible to rent a 1 bedroom property in Lambeth, from the council, at between £90 per week and £137 per week.  Obviously, I might be missing something.  Perhaps the properties currently available are really cheap flats in a bad state of repair, but the website showed a geographical spread of 1 bedroom properties, so I doubt that that is genuinely the case. 

What I perhaps have not accounted for is the number of private landlords who let propeties at high rents whose tenants then claim their money back in housing benefit.  But many many landlords will not rent properties to housing benefit claimants (try telephoning a letting agent in Kennington and asking if they'll accept DSS) so I don't know how many landlords would fit into this bracket. In addition, the landlords who let through Lettings First (Lambeth Council's partnership with private landlords) are warned to expect significantly less rent than they'd receive on the private market.  But the question still stands.  Does private housing paid for by housing benefit represent a higher cost to the government than housing benefit to council tenants?  If so, by how much?  Mightn't there be a case for building more social housing in the first place?
The Guardian is suggesting that the government are trying to "export poverty" to the outer boroughs of London, but the political consequences of such a move are rather unknown.  It's alleged that Boris Johnson came to power as a result of voters in the outer boroughs being mobilised.  What would happen if traditional Labour supporters end up being cast out of inner London into the outer darkness of the outer boroughs (which are traditionally more blue)?  Nobody knows.

What is undoubtedly the case, and where I'm in greater agreement with the Guardian, is that there are other boroughs in London that do have people living in properties who likely claim housing benefit at above the new threshold limit.  (I'm guessing that there must be quite a number of such claimants in Westminster).  So the question arises about whether Lambeth won't in fact experience a mass exodus (the Guardian says people will be forced to outer and more eastern boroughs), but will experience something of an influx of house hunters?  I don't know how easy it is to swap a local authority property in one area (or move from a local authority housing waiting list) for a local authority property / housng waiting list in another area, but I'm sure we'll soon find out.

Ongoing Lambeth leaseholder debacle

I've been leaked a copy of an email which was sent to Cllr Steve Reed (leader of Lambeth Council) and Derrick Anderson (Chief Executive of Lambeth Council), which I'm going to paste in full below:

I understand from Chris Lee's email response to me late last week that Lambeth Living stand by their estimates as Lambeth has been informed by their vendor, Lambeth Living, that all the estimates are correct and that, and I quote from Cathy Deplissis from Friday news piece, "Lambeth Living has a legal obligation to bill for service charges and Leaseholders have the legal obligation to pay thiose charges",

May I take this opportunity to remind you that those charges have to be "reasonable" and represent value for money otherwise they will not stand up in Leasholder Valauation Tribunal cases and again, this will be costly for Lambeth and will not help the organisations achieve the balanced budget by March 31st.

I am extremely disappointed that given the initial findings of the Audit Commission on the lack of response to Leaseholders' queries and request for information/evidence of charges etc, that we are still in this position and there seems to be no signs of progress to meet across the table to discuss this major issue.

I know that for political reasons, distancing oneself from the shambles of the ALMO might seem like a good idea, however, I cannot see how this will serve the longevity of any officer or Councillor as the fact remains that our Landlord is not ble to manage their property management contractor.

I can only say that after requesting this meeting, and Cllr. Pecks further follow up which has been ignored, that I will now have to email the residents who have again, given up their own time to work out their charges etc and sent copies to me so that I could have a discussion with you both, only to be let down again. I will aslo be sending this to the other Leaseholders that I have contact with as I have promised them that I will do what I can. and this failure is simply not for my lack of trying.

I am very disappointed that there are around 10,000 household in Lambeth being ignored and expected to pay for these hike in charges and the response is to pass this around and not to meet with us.

I will also be sending information to as many leaseholders as I can to inform them of their rights, under law, to hold Lambeth to account for these charges.

Yours in utter frustration and disappointment,

Steve Rice

It appears to me that Steve Rice is doing a fantastic public service for all Lambeth leaseholders. Remember, the inflated leaseholder bills are an issue across the whole Borough, and are not exclusive to SE11.

If progress on the issue (in the form of public meetings, and so on) is not forthcoming, then I will continue to publicise that fact in a way that makes it known to as many people as possible.

More on Lambeth Leaseholders

I'm getting a considerable number of hits from people who are Googling for Lambeth leaseholder charges. Please do keep the comments coming in. It's part of this blog's function to enable local people to have online contact with one another in order to build real life contacts, and hopefully strengthen our community.

In further news, the BBC published an article at lunch time today about the deteriorating relationship between Lambeth Living and the leaseholders here. Some of you might recognise the cheeky chappy in the picture!

[Edit 27/6/2009]: There is a video link to the BBC article now as well. Click here to view the clip which appeared on the BBC news. It's very interesting, and shows local people arguing that it would make more sense to move out, rent somewhere else and lease their properties back to Lambeth Council. I felt rather sorry for the Chief Executive of Lambeth Living, since her arguments about improving the way that they "capture" information on service charges clearly don't stack up against complaints that work stated on the bills has never actually been performed!

One commentator has linked to an article from Inside Housing, which details a massive catalogue of Lambeth Housing's failures from 2005 here.

Lambeth Leaseholder Service Charge Estimates 2009/2010

Today I was emailed a document, sent to a number of councilors/officers in the London Borough of Lambeth about the ludicrous Lambeth Living service charge increases for 2009/2010. Apparently, the service charge increase is widespread and a number of residents have complained direct to the BBC, so expect to see the item feature on the news tonight!

Amongst other items, the email alleges:

* The estimates have gone out to leaseholders, 4 months late.
* The charges appear to have gone up by at least 50% and in many cases nearly 100% for the coming year.
* There was no forewarning residents of the huge increases other than one letter 7 months ago regarding the possible increase in heating charges.
* There are charges on the invoices for services and contracts that do not exist.
* The delays have resulted in a huge cash flow problem, not only for Lambeth, but for residents, as Lambeth Living will be deducting 4 months at the increased rate from Leaseholders bank accounts - resulting in many peoples' account being in unauthorised overdraft.
* No notice was given to Leasehold Council nor residents that the increases were going to be so high

Also, the email states...

"Leaseholders have called the contact centre only to be told that they would receive a call the Leaseholder call back in 48 hours. When Leaseholders called again after not receiving their call back, there were to that the contact centre had received a directive that they were not to speak to anyone about these charges and that Leaseholders must put their enquiries/complaints in writing.

This would conveniently take us past the three days notice that leaseholders have before the Direct Debit requests would be made on their bank accounts."

No doubt we'll be hearing more about this in the coming weeks. Why not leave a comment if you live in or near SE11 and say how this affects you.

London European Election results - Lambeth breakdown

I know it's only of marginal interest to SE11 readers, but we are a part of the London Borough of Lambeth and I think the breakdown of voting in the Borough of Lambeth in the European elections is fascinating because it's contrary to the rest of the UK.

Thanks to Fiona Colley on Twitter who pointed me to the full results on Lambeth website here.

The breakdown is as follows:

1174 - BNP
2154 - Christian Party - Proclaiming Christ's Lordship
10537 - Conservative Party
488 - English Democrat Party
194 - Jury Team
11340 - Liberal Democrats
478 - No to EU: Yes to Democracy
281 - Pro Democracy: Libertas.eu
653 - Socialist Labour Party
10394 - The Green Party
15990 - The Labour Party
158 - The Socialist Party of Great Britain
3111 - United Kingdom Independence Party
155 - Yes to Europe
46 - Gene Alcantara
187 - Steven Cheung
176 - Jan Jananayagam
36 - Sohale Rahman
48 - Haroon Saad

Rejected ballots = 558
Turnout = 30.15%

So total votes cast = 58,158

What's interesting about these results is as follows:

1. The Green Party won only 143 votes less than the Conservatives in Lambeth. That's an appalling Conservative result and a fantastic result for the Greens!

2. Labour are so far ahead (4650 votes) than their nearest rivals (Lib Dems) in Lambeth that they're virtually unbeatable at current turnout levels. This might not be so interesting if Labour didn't appear to be performing so badly nationally. There's a joke in my hometown constituency that "you could pin a blue rosette on a monkey, and everybody would still vote Conservative", but that seems to hold for red rosettes in Lambeth.

3. UKIP performed appallingly in Lambeth compared with the national result. Even the UKIP result and the BNP result added together does not approach anything like that of the main parties and only makes up 7.37% of the vote.

4. The BNP won only just over 2% of the vote. That's still too much, but it does mean that they're not likely to gain a foothold in Lambeth and their "clean image" promotion is not working amongst local people. That's a very good thing.

5. If everyone who voted for a party that received under 1000 votes had voted for a party that received 1000 votes or above, there would be an extra 2900 votes zapping around that might not have been "wasted" on minor candidates. Those votes couldn't have closed the gap between Labour and their opponents, but they could have pushed Lib Dems much closer to Labour or pushed either the Conservatives or Greens into second place.

I would love it if this data were available by ward. We're interested in Princes, Oval and Bishops around here, but I don't suppose that information is available. Please comment if you know where I could obtain a further breakdown.

Lambeth Council - "Check the label" campaign

In case you thought that the SE11 youths of Lambeth were a singular mass of menace and nuisance, 24dash reports that Lambeth Council have launched a campaign (named "check the label") to tell you otherwise. That means that if you see any scary looking people on posters, you can read the text next to their faces and be reassured that they just look scary, but are in fact fine, upstanding citizens. So that's alright then!

Less than 3% of Lambeth youth is (apparently) involved in crime (those would be the ones they've caught), so our local youth need Lambeth Council's backing to improve their image. I still wonder why these aspiring youth need to look as menacing as they appear to in the photographs. I'm presuming that all of this local area blogging is turning me into a social conservative, and that I've aged before my time, but really! Why aren't there any young smiling people? And more importantly, where are the black women with the "aspiring" labels on them? It may be that the selection of four photographs on the Young Lambeth website is not representative of the entire campaign and I know that one can't seek to represent everybody, but I think it's a question worth asking.

I didn't know about the existence of the Young Lambeth website until today, but it seems like a new initiative. Let's hope it doesn't go the sad sorry way of the Lambeth LGBT forum which doesn't seem to have had its meeting dates updated since 2007, has a defunct "discussion board" forum, a distinct lack of information in the Police Update Board section amd no up and coming events. What is our council tax being spent on?

This is terrible, I seem to be becoming the resident whinger of SE11.

Local Development Framework - Draft Core Strategy [Sections 5, 6 and 7]

Lambeth council recently released a draft version of its "Core Strategy", which is the most important document contained in the "Local Development Framework". The entire document is 116 pages long, although the Council welcome comments. I've been sifting through it over the past few days have and produced a cut-down version, mostly just summarising what was written. I've not changed their wording much, but have shortened and simplified because it contains some interesting ideas for the Borough.

I've used the document headings where possible, but have not summarised every section as it's a highly repetitive document.The terms in purple are the "key" definitions.
The insightful comments in red are my comments. Due to length of the document, I've split my summaries into separate blog posts.

Section 5 – Spatial Planning Issues

In order to achieve sustainable development over next 15-20 yrs, the Core Strategy must address 6 key issues:

1. Accommodating population growth (p24)

According to the mayor’s London Plan, Lambeth must find space for additional 1100 homes every year until 2016/2017. This target has been exceeded for the three yrs since 2005/6. Demand will come as Lambeth children grow up, existing households break into smaller units, and adults/families migrate to the borough to find work and a place to live. Affordability is a struggle in Lambeth where entry level price for housing is high compared with household income. Lambeth’s essential public services find it hard to retain key workers because they can’t afford to live close to whether they work. Lambeth need to identify an additional four pitches for gypsies and travellers in Lambeth.

2. Achieving economic prosperity and opportunity for all (p26)

Lambeth is prosperous, but with pockets of extreme poverty. The poverty is in commercially vibrant areas eg. Waterloo/Brixton. Therefore skills shortages are filled by migrant labour which then increases demand for local housing, transport and services. The Core Strategy will contribute to tackling these barriers by maintaining a supply of local job opportunities. Affordability of premises is an issue for some businesses eg. creative sector and social enterprises.

Waterloo and Vauxhall present the most significant potential for commercial development and job growth in the borough, as well as potential for new housing. However, this will not happen unless the capacity of the public transport infrastructure serving these areas also grows at a sufficient rate. Major developers will be expected to help meet the cost of increasing this. (p27) [They will probably be able to tick the boxes to say that this is done if the developers of Battersea Power Station add two additional tube stations to the Northern Line, but I’m not sure whether those will fall strictly in Lambeth. I think that one of them will. It doesn’t really help anybody living towards the south of the Borough]

Lambeth’s hierarchy of town centres presents another opportunity. New shops need to be located in a way that supports, rather than undermines existing town centres. Brixton and Streatham have potential for new commercial and residential development. This will help secure their future in the face of retail and leisure expansion at Elephant and Battersea. Clapham High Street is thriving. Other high streets need careful regeneration eg. West Norwood, Stockwell [where exactly is Stockwell High Street?] and Herne Hill (p28).


3. Tacking and adapting to climate change (p29)

Most important contribution is to reduce carbon emissions by meeting needs locally, promoting alternative to the car, sustainable design of buildings, re-use of existing buildings, renewable energy, safeguarding allotments, retaining/promoting tree growth, urban greening and reducing landfill waste. [I detect a clash of goods between attempting to build the council housing stock on certain open land, versus promoting green spaces in the north of the Borough. Watch this space.] However, there will still be a need for appropriate car usage, and parking, including for those with mobility difficulties.

4. Providing essential infrastructure (physical, social and green) (p31)

It won’t be possible to achieve the significant levels of housing and economic growth set out in the Core Strategy without supporting transport infrastructure. [This point is reiterated throughout the document, but other than the proposed Northern line extension, I can't see where the investment might come from to promote this.] North/south transport is better than east/west transport and major developers in worst locations will be expected to supplement significant future public sector investment. More land is required for schools. Lambeth, particularly in the north has little open space relative to population. More open space is needed for burial sites.

Lambeth has various sites for sustainable waste management, but does not have the quantity to manage 486,000 tonnes (the prediction by 2020) (p33). [This is very interesting, and presumably all Boroughs have similar problems. I wonder what community strategies could be promoted for reducing waste.]

A general theme running through all partners’ programmes is trend towards neighbourhood based delivery so local facilities need to be increased to promote adult learning, skills training, English language tuition, employment support, child care etc. [I detect another clash of goods between promotion of "local" high street services (Brixton/Streatham) and development of large retail establishments (Elephant and Vauxhall). The document does actually mention this, but fails to outline how all of the community/retail areas are to grow co-operatively.]

5. Promoting community cohesion and safe, liveable neighbourhoods (p33)

Some communities feel their neighbourhoods lack stability and not enough households stay long enough to put down roots. [That’s probably a correct assessment if one considers that there’s a yearly churn of 20%! See previous post.] Residents in some parts of the borough feel that communities are essential to stable community and that the loss of family housing to flats is damaging that. The Core Strategy seeks to address that. Multiple social problems frequently occur on existing social housing sites and it’s difficult for those communities to make positive changes. [Unsurprisingly], some of these estates fail the “decent homes” standards. [It’s not clear whether “the decent homes standards” relate to the figure on p14 that one third of council housing is “unfit”. I suspect it doesn’t, but I’m not clear what the decent homes standards are, and since it sounds alarming, it would be useful to have this outlined.] Communities need spaces that allow informal day-to-day contact and social interaction. Lambeth has such buildings eg. youth centres, places of worship, cafés, local shops, but coverage is uneven and some have shortages of useable space, while others have under-used facilities. Space for young people is a priority in areas where unemployment/gang activity is high. [I hope they've read the studies that suggest that unstructured youth clubs can actually increase crime.] Lambeth has no central volunteer centre. [Interesting point. A volunteer centre would be an interesting proposal.] Large church congregations struggle to find good sized premises in good locations. In the South of Lambeth, there’s a lack of play facilities.

6. Creating and maintaining attractive, distinctive places (p35)

Historic assets are currently under used. The Core Strategy intends to pay particular attention to proposed development on the River Thames. High density development will continue to be essential to meet Lambeth’s needs over next 10-15 years. Tall buildings are appropriate for some uses and in some locations. The Core Strategy encourages high density development, including tall buildings, where of high quality and appropriately located. [I still wonder where tall buildings are ever appropriately located. I wish somebody would do some work on whether tall buildings create or deter community cohesion.] The large number of artists is a distinctive feature of Lambeth and they have specific space needs. Local shops, independent businesses and street markets are essential to identity. These include gay businesses in Vauxhall, Brixton/Lower Marsh markets, Portuguese businesses in Stockwell and Somali businesses in Streatham.

Section 6 – Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives & Section 7 – Strategic Policies

These sections reiterate much of the above, but p38 has an optimistic and visionary idea of Lambeth in 2030. p42 has a map, showing transport hubs and key areas. p46 sets some housing targets that I haven’t seen elsewhere in the document.

---

Section 8 will probably appear tommorrow. It is quite interesting, but is taking a while to summarise because it deals with local areas, and is quite information heavy.

Local Development Framework - Draft Core Strategy [Sections 1 and 2]

Lambeth council recently released a draft version of its "Core Strategy", which is the most important document contained in the "Local Development Framework". The entire document is 116 pages long, although the Council welcome comments. I've been sifting through it over the past few days have and produced a cut-down version, mostly just summarising what was written. I've not changed their wording much, but have shortened and simplified because it contains some interesting ideas for the Borough.

I've used the document headings where possible, but have not summarised every section as it's a highly repetitive document.
The terms in purple are the "key" definitions.
The insightful comments in red are my comments.

Section 1 – Introduction

A Local Development Framework (LDF) is a collection of documents designed to guide development of a borough over 15/20 years. The Core Strategy is the first and most important document in the LDF. A Local Development Framework must achieve sustainable development for the area it covers. The four guiding principles for sustainable development are: Social progress, Environmental protection, Prudent use of natural resources and High levels of economic growth and employment. (p4)

The Lambeth Sustainable Community Strategy is a document used to prepare The Core Strategy, and the Sustainable Community Strategy contains data related to social, economic and environmental wellbeing, including health and community safety information. (p92)

Overall vision for Lambeth Sustainable Community Strategy is that by 2020 Lambeth will be a diverse, dynamic and enterprising borough at the heart of London, and there are 7 long term outcomes for the area:

* Great place to do business with high investment
* Greater well being for households through more residents in employment
* More young people on path to success
* Safe and cohesive places where people are empowered and play active roles in communities
* Improved health / well being of people to live independent lives
* Lower levels of poverty / exclusion by helping adults into employment, education and training
* Mixed and sustainable communities with more new homes, improved existing dwellings and environment

Lambeth’s LDF will be important tool to implement spatial aspects of outcomes such as geographical inequality, new housing and jobs and delivering infrastructure. (p6)

Significant proportion of Lambeth Core Strategy is dependent on private sector for delivery, re. new housing and commercial development; offices, etc. This is dependent on availability of development finance through the market. The Lambeth Core Strategy is meant to be flexible enough to enable private sector development at all stages of economic cycle.

Section 2 – Evidence Base

Population and Diversity

Lambeth covers an area area of approximately ten and a half square miles and population projected to grow 17% to 317,000 by 2026. Lambeth is among the most densely populated areas in the country, and current household composition includes high proportion of single parent households with dependent children. Population churn is estimated at 20% every year. [That’s very high! I didn't realise that so many people stayed in Lambeth so briefly.] (p13)

Lambeth is even more ethnically diverse than rest of London. The largest groups of immigrants between 2002 and 2006 were Polish, and after that Australian, and then Jamaican. [It seems to me that it’s a bit pointless to have “diversity” be an aim of the Sustainable Community Strategy when this has clearly already been achieved and is unlikely to change!] (p13)

Deprivation

2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation places Lambeth as 5th most deprived borough in London and 19th most deprived in England, which is worse than 2004, and is a result of improvements in other boroughs as well as a decline in Lambeth of income, health/disability, living environment and access to housing/barriers to services. (p13). The most deprived areas are spread, but concentrated in Coldharbour ward in Brixton, and Crown Lane area of Knights Hill ward. Most affluent include the Thames-side part of Bishops and Dulwich borer area of Thurlow Park (p14).

Housing

Lambeth’s housing consists 70% flats and 30% houses and is typical of inner London. Price of an average dwelling is around £350k in December 2007, but this had decreased by approx. 12% by December 2008. [That brings down the average dwelling to being worth £308k by my calculations.] Average gross household income in Lambeth is 31k per year. [My guess is that that's quite low for London as a whole.] (p14)

32% of council homes and estimated 11% of private sector dwellings were assessed as “unfit” by Council’s private sector stock condition survey in 2004. [That is bad. Are they really saying that a third of council homes are unfit for habitation? Are people actually living in them?] There are just under 2k households living in temporary accommodation (Dec 2008), and 13kish households in “housing need” within the Borough. (p14)

Economy

There are around 10k businesses in Lambeth. 75% of these have fewer than 5 employees. Lambeth has third lowest business density per head of population across inner London, but numbers of VAT registered firms grew by 14% between 2002 and 2006. [This will probably drop again due to the recession.] (p14)

There’s a cluster of large employers around Waterloo/Vauxhall. Over half of Lambeth’s existing jobs are located in Waterloo/South Bank area. The borough suffers high rates of unemployment – 71% of working age people employed in 2007/2008 in Lambeth compared with 70% across London and 74% nationally. (Doesn’t sound that bad to me, compared with the 70% figure for whole of London). Lambeth has one of highest number of incapacity benefit claimants (p15).

Education and Transport

Lambeth has 86 schools of which 13 are secondary. There’s a shortage of secondary places in the borough. There are very few surplus places in Lambeth primary schools and demand is expected to rise. Over 123 community languages are spoken in Lambeth schools in addition to English. (p15)

There are 14 overground railway stations spread evenly and 8 underground stations mainly in the north, with many bus routes. Residents in Streatham and West Norwood are dependent on rail and bus connections. Half of households don’t have access to a car, which is one of highest proportions in the country. Traffic congestion is a serious concern for residents. (p16)

Environment

There are 1.54 hectares of unrestricted open space in Lambeth per 1000 of the population, but access is unevenly spread and limited in north of the borough (p16). Total energy consumption in Lambeth is 3.2% of total energy consumption in London [seems quite low to me, considering Lambeth's high population, but this might be due to lack of industry]. In September 2008, an estimated 6700 households were in fuel poverty. Lambeth has lower levels of carbon dioxide emissions at 5.5 tonnes per 1000 population than London as a whole (6.8 tonnes). Despite predicted improvements in air quality in Lambeth over next 4/5 years, some measures eg. Nitrogen dioxide will continue to fail government targets (p17).

In line with targets, 25% of Lambeth household waste was recycled in 2007/8 and that has increased steadily from less than 10% in 2001/2002. Lambeth ranked 20th for house household recycling and composting in 2007/8 amongst London boroughs (p17). [It sounds as though Lambeth have taken vast steps forward, but there must be some way to go, since 20th is quite a long way down! Would be interesting to have a ranking compared to the country as a whole.]

Health and social care

Lambeth scores the 4th worst in London on unhealthy lifestyles and obesity is growing among young people. There are an estimated 5029 people in borough for whom drug use is a problem. [I expect this is a chronic underestimation because these stats. are likely to be very difficult to measure, and underestimating means that provision of services can be avoided.] Lambeth has one of highest incidence of mental health issues in capital, particularly among residents from ethnic minority backgrounds (p18).

Lambeth has a high and increasing birth rate, and numbers expected to live over 85 years old will increase demand in care services. Lambeth has the highest teenage conception rate in the UK (p18). [That’s a news headline if ever there was one.]

Community Safety

p18/19 Comparing London Boroughs, Lambeth had 4th highest count of Total Notifiable Offences (which includes majority of crimes, but excludes more minor offences), but that has been reducing since 2003/2004. Gun enabled crimes are high but decreasing. Tackling gang related crime, violent extremism and threat of terrorism are growing priorities for the borough. Crime in Lambeth is high around public transport interchanges.

[Even my cut down version of the document is long (around 4k words), so I'm going to post the next interesting sections as separate posts just to break it down somewhat.]

New SE11 related blogs and a look at the political wards

I've resisted adding SE11 councillor blogs to the list until recently because I do not support any particular political party. However, I today discovered two blogs both written by different parties, so I do not appear partisan and since they both cover the area, it seems a shame not to link to them. They are as follows:

1. Oval News - by 3 lib dem councillors in the Oval Ward

2. SE11 Action team - by 3 labour councillors (and some of their supporters) in the Princes Ward

That made me wonder about the rest of the Lambeth political wards, and whether they are represented. (SE11 is largely spread across the Borough of Lambeth, but there are a few bits at the north end that come under Southwark's control). There's a nice handy map of the Lambeth Wards on the Lambeth Council website.

As you can see, the ones that are relevant to SE11 and surrounds are:

1. Princes Ward - This is really the northern part of SE11. It goes up as far as the southern half of Brook Drive, runs down the middle of Kennington Park Road and does not go any furthur south than Kennington Lane. The map also indicates that it covers half of the river Thames! [Labour - as of July 2008]

2. Oval Ward - This is a major constituent part of SE11 and also covers quite a lot of SW8. It includes the whole of Kennington Park, Oval cricket ground (which is its centre) and Vauxhall Park. It goes south as far as Dorset Road and Thorne Road, east to cover a small portion of Brixton Road, and in the north, it runs down the middle of Kennington Lane. [Lib-Dem - as of July 2008]

3. Bishop's Ward - There is a very tiny part of the north east corner of SE11 that is covered by Bishop's Ward. The northern part of Old Paradise Street, the northern part of Fitzalan Street, the whole of Walnut Tree Walk and a very small segment of Kennington Road all fall into this ward. I think, however, that my own postcode map boundaries are a little hazy around here, because SE1 creeps into some of the streets around here. [Lib Dem - as of July 2008]

4. Vassall Ward - This is not strictly a part of SE11, but it's very close to Oval, and covers the area south-east of SE11. For our purposes, it goes down the middle of Camberwell New Road in the north, and Clapham Road on the west. [Labour / Lib Dem Split as of July 2008]

5. Stockwell Ward - Again, this also does not cover SE11, but is situated to the south west of SE11. [Labour as of July 2008]

The political parties of the councillors and the councillor details are all condensed on very helpful Lambeth Council page here.