Beaufoy Site to become housing and Lambeth Council U-turn on Shelley site - KOV September 2011 update

The Cllr Mark Harrison (Prince Ward) had plenty to say on behalf of Lambeth Council at KOV last night, which I've broken down into six main points, as follows:

Beaufoy site
Lambeth Council had hoped the Beaufoy sale would be concluded by last night, but since it hasn't, the developer couldn't be present at the meeting due to commercial confidentiality issues. Local residents still don't know who the developer is to be. Cllr Harrison informed the meeting that the Beaufoy would be brought back into use and restored with housing brought to the site (40% to be affordable). The Beaufoy Trust will gain capital receipt to help young people into training and education, and a portion of the money they receive will be spent in the immediate area. Due to central government cutting the Council's capital grant budget by 60%, the Council are having to bridge the gap by selling off assets.

Until last night, I was optimistic that the site could be developed as part of a mixed-use education/housing site, but that is clearly no longer possible. I'm afraid I can't think of anything positive to say about this, so I will refer you to a statement made in 2006 by Cllr Sam Townend (old Labour councillor in Princes Ward) who said that Lambeth Council wanted to see:

(1) Ownership [of the Beaufoy] being taken away from the Council and handed back
to local people as trustees (obviously under the supervision of the Charity
Commission) if there is sufficient interest by local people to make this viable.
(2) A modernisation of the objects of the [Beaufoy] Trust to reflect the
educational needs of people living in Kennington and Vauxhall now.
(3) The deployment of this community asset towards the educational needs of people
living in Kennington and Vauxhall now. The way this would be done would be a
matter for the new trustees in consultation with residents of Ethelred TMO,
Vauxhall Gardens and Kennington.

I don't think there's any doubt that this represents a failure on the part of the Council. Yes, it could certainly be argued that there has been a major financial crisis and a change of government, but the Beaufoy has been empty for over 10 years, well before either the financial meltdown or the ConDems.

Shelley Site
As well as a U-turn on the Beaufoy, Lambeth Council have conceded to local pressure from the Save the Shelley School campaign and will be adding an additional 2011-2012 school class on the site, to be run by the Archbishop Sumner administration. You may remember that Lambeth Council argued the case that school places were needed in the south of the Borough, and made a statement accordingly in May 2011:

As there is no projected demand for an educational use for the Shelley site we
propose to sell the site to raise funds to help every child in Lambeth have a
primary school place in the future.

A common sense reading suggests that Lambeth Council have changed their mind. Fair enough. But in an amusing manner, the expansion is not a straightforward concession to local pressure. Indeed, the 2011-2012 Archbishop Sumner primary class is only being added because excess pressure in the south of the Borough has meant that two "bulge classes" had to be added at schools in the centre of Lambeth (it wasn't possible to add classes in the south itself), which in turn put pressure on the centre of the Borough, and pushed the "bulge" upwards, creating a "domino" effect. So the Shelley site pressure group parents' have got their own way, seemingly against the wishes of the local councillors! Feel free to read the September 2011 Scrutiny Committee minutes if you're interested.

The Scrutiny minutes even state that the VNEB expansion won't require significant additional places until 2021, but who knows? Cllr Harrison did note that the Council was taking the Shelley site's population projections very seriously. Anyhow, having added a bulge class for 2011-2012, the bulge has to progress upwards throughout the school, so it will be nearly impossible to free up the Shelley site for six years! The Council are clear that there's no permanent funding for expanding Archbishop Sumner, but Cllr Harrison noted that it does keep the options open for the time being, and that much depends on what Southwark Council have planned because Archbishop Sumner could also be affected by a domino affect across the border due to the development of Elephant and Castle. All very complicated predictions...

Also, read those minutes carefully, and note too that a German-English bilingual free school seem to have made an application/expression of interest on the Shelley site, of which an outcome will be made known this month. Could it be that Lambeth Council is adding the bulge class to Archbishop Sumner (rather than, say Vaxuhall School) to prevent their site being purchased by a free school? If a Free School wanted to purchase the site, the Council would not be able to sell and claim their sought-after capital receipt, as the site would be tied up in Free school battles for years. Hmm. Very interesting, eh?

Black Prince Trust
The Black Prince Trust is close to finalising their lease on Site A of the old Lilian Baylis school. Site A comprises sports facilities which will be run by Sports Action Zone, which was handed over by Lambeth Council into a public trust earlier in the year. Work will start on the new gym once the lease has been finalised. The Council is concluding its selection of the developer for Site B, (that part of the school site to be sold off, including listed buildings). Work is being undertaken with community groups using the current site to help find them alternative accommoddation. eg. Your Story will be housed in the shops at Lambeth Walk.

Stock Tranfer for Ethelred Estate
There will be a ballot on Stock Transfer to a Housing Association for the Ethelred Estate which, if it went ahead, could unlock £100 million of investment into the Ethelred Estate and other Lambeth estates. The Association proposed is the only tenant lead housing association in the country.

Linear Park for Tyers Street
Cllr Harrison is, with VGERTA, looking at the posibility of turning Tyers Street into a linear park. This would certainly ease some of the green-space deficiency in the north of the Borough, and since all of the coaches were moved on, the streets seems to be under-parked. The proposal is still at a very early stage. Email your thoughts to Cllr Harrison mharrison@lambeth.gov.uk or Chrys (VGERTA Secretary) vgerta.secretary@gmail.com

VNEB Manifesto
Finally, Lambeth Labour have assembled a VNEB "manifesto". Technically, that's party-political, so I'm going to direct you to the document that was handed out by Councillors at the KOV meeting and likely say no more until election time.

Planning updates on Kylun Towers and 8 Albert Embankment - KOV meeting September 2011

A full agenda for the Kennington Oval Vauxhall Forum, which kicked off with apologies/reasons for absence from TFL and Treasury Holdings.

Absence by TFL re. the Vauxhall gyratory plans:
Lambeth Council are leading on a visionary exercise which will precede any other work by TFL. Carolyn Dwyer, Divisional Director of Public Realm, is the contact concerning the visioning work at Lambeth Council. Once the Council have undertaken their consultation, TFL will be able to present further on the future of the gyratory. [You can read my last post about Vauxhall gyratory options here.]


Absence by Treasury Holdings re. the Northern Line Extension:
Treasury Holdings' current consultation on the NLE finishes at the end of September and they can't release information prior to sign off and analysis, so there's nothing to add until that point. [The most recent statement on the NLE adds little to the discussion, but can be found on the TH site.]


Vauxhall Island Site - Kylun Towers
In other news, the developer Kylun have appealed, concerning their proposed Towers, to the Secretary of State against Lambeth Council on account of non-determination. To read the plans for the Kylun Island site in the middle of Vauxhall, see here. Vauxhall Society recently wrote a rather withering post on Lambeth's inability to come to any decision at all about the site for a whole 13 months. The Kylun discussion will go to committee on 18th October and there's still time to make submissions. Apparently, the hearing won't be held until April 2012.

Cllr Jane Edbrooke emailed me a few weeks ago with Lambeth Council's "official line" on Kylun which comes from a Lambeth Council "spokesman":

"We have already made clear to the developer that we are refusing their current application and we’re surprised by their comments and actions. Senior Cabinet Members met with the partners of Kylun Towers in July and were very clear about Lambeth’s expectations for the site. It is crucial that the development is to the benefit of the established local community and general public realm and these aspirations must be met in any planning application."

8 Albert Embankment - Fire Brigade Site
I posted back in August about a re-submitted planning application for 8 Albert Embankment which contained a few changes on the previous application. However, it often takes a while for community groups to notice certain applications and to get organised, and as you can see from the comments of the August post, that is the case concerning 8 Albert Embankment and Whitgift TRA.

Last night at KOV, we heard an eloquent and impassioned plea from the residents of Whitgift House of Whitgift Tenants and Residents Association who are concerned about the impact of the 14 and 22 storey towers on their homes and Lambeth High Street Recreation Ground. Whitgift House is the building which would be most impacted by the re-development of 8 Albert Embankment. In winter months, the ground floor and first floor of Whitgift House would only get one hour of sunlight each day. Their "anti"campaign is, they noted, supported by Cllr Mark Harrison, Cllr Steve Morgan and Kate Hoey MP. All residents in Whitgift Hosue have signed up to the campaign against 8 Albert Embankment, and indeed, every resident (excepting one) has put in an objection to the development.

The TRA's main objections concern over-shadowing, blocking of the light, too much parking and low levels of social housing in the development. Whitgift residents wanted a third assessment on the light issues, but after speaking to Planning Aid, they've been told there's no point as Lambeth Council have performed their own assessment. The Council's assessment says the minimum standards have been transgressed but that that's fine for Whitgift House because they're within an urban environment! There are only 25 flats in Whitgift House. Additionally, residents are arguing that 8 Albert Embankment falls within Vauxhall Conservation area, containing amongst other bits and pieces, the Royal Daulton Building and thus arguably constitutes a separate area from the rest of "main" Vauxhall where tall building has been ear-marked by the Mayor. (Whether this will work is debatable on account of the permision granted to 81 Black Prince Road, but we shall see...).

Un-co-operative Lambeth Council: Friends of Lollard Street Adventure Playground, Kennington found it closed this morning



 
I'd just like to draw readers' attention to a letter on Lollard Street Adventure Playground published on the Kennington Association news blog this morning from Anna Tapsell who is both chair of the Kennington Association (KA) and Treasurer of the Friends of Lollard Street Adventure Playground (FOLSAP).
FOLSAP have been working for some time to prevent the closure of Lollard Street Adventure Playground and to think about how it might be run in future, given the reality of Council cuts.

It seems, according to the letter, that the Council agreed at a meeting on June 16th that £45,000 was available to potentially be allocated to a local management group were they to put forward a viable business plan.  FOLSAP report that they did develop a business plan, but were later told at a meeting on 18th August that, contrary to the previous information, £45,000 would not be available to a local management project. 

Clearly the Lollard Street Adventure playground project had to go to tender, but FOLSAP are alleging that their experience with the Council has not been one of co-operation.  Given that our Co-operative council are not appearing terribly co-operative, perhaps constituents of other councils should take heed.  FOLSAP say the process began too late and that councillors/officers have presented mixed and non-transparent messages.  They raise a question as to the "propriety of the tender process"

In Lambeth, the letter asserts, having such playgrounds open is a "safeguarding issue", given that many parents leave their children there in place of after-school care.  Most worryingly, when Ms Tapsell visited the playground this morning, she found:

"just a scrawled ungrammatical note pinned to the gate saying that it would be closed this week. No explanation or other information about when it might be open. Two little boys were there with their table tennis bats. Their parents were back at work."

Additionally, the playground will now, according to the letter, only be open for one session on a weekday!  It won't be open on Saturdays at all.  Back on 7th April, at the KOV meeting, Cllr Harrison re-assured local residents that Lollard Street Adventure Playground would not be closing.   Arguably, one could liken a playground that runs for only one session a week to a closure in everything but name. Moreover, there are still questions to be asked about why it's closed this week, and why no information is available concerning its re-opening.  Indeed, opening the playground for such limited hours is likely to lead to it becoming less popular.  See the case of the Kennington Park Adventure playground in which two playgrounds will merge on to one smaller site to make way for housing, given alleged non-use of the land... where is it?  Ahh, yes, this is what I wrote back in September 2010:

The defence offered (by the architect) in favour of consolidating the [Kennington Park] site was that the One O'Clock club only opens for 3 hours per day for 4 days per week.  The One O'Clock club is apparently "not well used" (at peak times, the architect suggested that 20 children use it)...

Even more worrying, given recent civil unrest near these parts, is Lambeth's failure to understand that adventure playgrounds are a public place off the streets for children and young people to gather.  To fail to allow local organisations any say in the supposedly mutual process of running facilities is distinctly un-co-operative and short changes residents.  Short-term cost cutting of youth services will likely only lead to further social unrest.  A recent report from the Department of Education notes that a quarter of excluded primary school students expelled in 2009-2010 were from Lambeth.  There's no point in having police officers visit primary schools to warn children away from gang life if no alternative facilities are in place for their use and their parents are not at home to supervise on account of being at work.

It would be really good to see whether our MP still has any teeth when it comes to influencing the local authority and working for the good of less-affluent north Lambeth residents.

Vauxhall Gyratory: Greed, irresponsibility and entitlement.

(Photo taken from Tradescant Rd blog)

In a post-riot London, whilst our current Prime Minister is waxing lyrical on greed, irresponsibility and entitlement, Lurking about SE11 continues to think about local matters.  "Local" names where we're brought up, how we're socialised, who we talk to and how we learn to interact with others.  Smart phones, iPads and technology aside, our built environment, communities and neighbours are where we learn to discover shared goods.  On a positive note, I'd like to point to a great photo from Vauxhall City Farm, applauding the efforts of Clapham residents to repair their local community.  But just over a mile away from Westminster, in Vauxhall, decisions will need to be taken that speak into what sort of city we'd like London to be.  The future of the Vauxhall gyratory remains a tiny decision for politicians, but a massive concern for drivers and residents, cyclists and businesses.

Listening to the voices on the ground is something that both politicians and decision makers will need to do in the days to come.  Readers might suggest that it is fatuous to try and draw links between riots and city planning, but much of the issues boil down to who is being heard.  Anybody who has attended a local consultation will understand that the question is always whose voice counts?  Concerning our own gyratory, we must ask "who is being greedy given the current road layout?",  "who is being irresponsible in the face of death?" and "to whom is entitlement owing?".  These are the questions David Cameron wants us to think about concerning rioters and bankers, but they affect ordinary people in their daily routines too.

Plans concerning the Vauxhall Gyratory, are slowly chugging through the wheels of local government.  Val Shawcross (chair of Transport Committee on London Assembly) confirmed at the end of July that Lambeth Council are now to work with TFL to carry out a "Vision for Vauxhall" exercise on an improved public space and transport plan for Vauxhall to add to the VNEB OAPF.  Val Shawcross is "hopeful" that this might lead to a "better pedestrian and cycling environment" for the whole area, as opposed to it remaining a "motorway blighted backyard" (private email).  There are currently no dates for the proposed consultation.  At present, we know that Lambeth Council and Val Shawcross both support the removal of the gyratory, but there are concerns about Boris' "traffic smoothing" policies.  When you read "traffic", in that phrase, you need to think vehicle rather than pedestrian or cyclist.

Ms Shawcross may well be hopeful, but I am not, mostly because the exercise is to involve TFL.  I regularly drive through Vauxhall, tube underneath it, bus into it, walk across it and wheel a Boris bike through it (I daren't ride through the interchange) so I  know my subject.  We all know that there are bad cyclists and bad car/lorry drivers.  It is the latter that tend to be involved in accidents that kill people.  Cyclists very rarely kill other road users.  And yet, despite their road use, they are not given anywhere near the amount of road space they require at Vauxhall.  Cycle London has pointed out that 20% of Vauxhall southbound traffic between 5pm - 8pm and 20% of Vauxhall northbound trafiic between 7am-10am is cyclist traffic.  Cyclists are not given 20% of the space, and this gyratory remains nasty, brutish and full of traffic looking to escape the congestion charge.  Something has to give, so let's raise David Cameron's first point.  Who is being greedy?  Before we move on, I urge you to read Cyclists in the City's post on the proposed cycle superhighway to pass through Vauxhall from Peckham to Victoria and the followup after his walkaround with TFL.

A number of angry emails continue to pass through my inbox, and one (or maybe several) anonymous commentators want me to oppose options concerning removal of the Vauxhall gyratory!  I am not clear that any of us fully understand the proposed options, but I cannot see that retaining the gyratory aids anything other than vehicular traffic.  It is time for south Londoners and residents (especially those that live on the gyratory) and cyclists to ask for their requests to be heard.  Vauxhall interchange is a blight upon Vauxhall, particularly given the pollution levels in the area.  Nobody wants it in their backyard.

I remain unhopeful because we know that even with cross-party support and London assembly support and a huge recent protest, Blackfriars' bridge cyclists were not heard.  So, here perhaps is a good time to raise David Cameron's second point.  Who is being irresponsible?  London Cyclist weighed in with a good answer concerning Blackfriars Bridge when he noted,

"I’m proud to live in a city where despite the Mayor saying “more needs to be done on cycling over Blackfriars Bridge”, despite unanimous support from all the political parties of the London Assembly, despite expert recommendations for 20mph speed limits on all of London’s central bridges, despite growing pollution levels and despite mass protests by cyclists, we have a transportation authority that can override them and do what it knows is right for London." 

The most recent published info. on ideas for the Vauxhall Interchange from TFL is found in TFL's Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersa report, catchily named, "Public Realm & Highways Modelling Study".  The relevant pages are p40 - p48.

There are seven options outlined in the report. Four options concern removing the gyratory and returning it to two-way working.  The other three options propose leaving the gyratory as stands...   My guess is that TFL will push for one-way working because even the minimum two-way working plan requires 31% reduction in morning peak-time vehicular traffic.  Despite the fact that it is clear that vehicle drivers are the greedy party, and despite the fact it is clear that TFL are the irresponsible party when it comes to addressing cyclist and pedestrian concerns, the question remains concerning entitlement, and those to whom is's owed.  Is entitlement owed to cyclists?  Residents?  Commuters?  Pedestrians?  Public transport users?  This is an eminently political question and there is no one good answer.  But I suggest politicians and TFL planners ask themselves the question, "would I be prepared to live and raise children on the Vauxhall gyratory?"

I have provided a summary of sketchy TFL options for Vauxhall gyratory, but it's rather difficult to imagine unless you know the roads and their names exceedingly well.  The diagrams in the document are not currently helpful (unless zoomed in closely) and contain too much detail to see traffic flow.  Ideally, diagrams would show basic arrows indicating traffic movement.  If anybody wants to email me simplified diagrams, I'll add them.

Removing the gyratory and return to two-way options

1) Remove South Lambeth Rd from gyratory and relocate the bus station to South Lambeth Rd.

Advantages summary:  

A new public square at the Underground and Rail station entrances (same as with option 2, 3 and 4), simplification of Vauxhall Bridge and other junctions (helps cyclists) and additional public realm at Southern end of Albert Embakment. 

Disadvantages summary: 

31% reduction of traffic required in morning and 21% reduction required for the evening, affecting network capacity and increasing congestion.  (Not clear if that's car/lorry traffic or bus capacity?).  Also traffic delays, bus delays and reduced bus station capacity.

2) Two-way with simpified layout at Nine Elms Lane / Wandsworth Road

You're going to have to go and look at the document diagram for more info. on this!

Advantages summary: 

Link between interchange and new linear park.  Carriageway reduction on Wandsworth Rd. New public square at Underground and Rail station entrances (same as with options 1, 3 and 4).  Changes to Wandsworth Rd and Nine Elms Lane, Albert Embankment and Vauxhall Bridge would reduce accidents and improve cycling conditions (same as option 3).  Wouldn't need to move the bus station. 

Disadvantages summary:

Traffic reduction of 40% of current capacity in morning and evening which would produce congestion and delayed bus journeys.  But...  the bus station structure (is this the ski slope?) would need to be removed (as with option 3) and the bus station capacity would be reduced. 

3) Two-way with Buses and Cyclists only in Parry Street

Advantages summary:

Improvements for pedestrians crossing Parry St and other junctions, due to two-way working.  A new public square at Underground and Rail station entrances (same as with options 1, 2 and 4).  Changes to Wandsworth Rd and Nine Elms Lane, Albert Embankment and Vauxhall Bridge would reduce accidents and improve cycling conditions (same as option 2).  New uses for arches in South Lambeth Place.

Disadvantages summary:

Traffic reduction of 36% required in morning and 31% in evening, affecting network capacity and increasing congestion. Buses experience delays. Bus station structure would need to be removed (as with options 2 and 4).

4) Two-way with Buses and Cyclists only in Wandsorth Rd

Advantages summary:

Improvements for pedestrians crossing Wandsworth Rd.  Reduced carriageway improving public realm. A new public square at Underground and Rail station entrances (same as with options 1, 2 and 3). Simplification of Vauxhall Bridge junction which will help cyclists.  Improvements for pedestrian crossings.

Disadvantages summary:

Vehicular traffic reductions of approx. 50% required in both morning and evening(!!!) affecting network capacity and increasing congestion. Buses experience delays.  Bus station capacity reduced and structure would need to be removed (as with options 2 and 3)

Options for one-way movement

5) One Way:  Do Minimum

Advantages summary:

Improvements to pedestrian movements by adding pedestrian crossings, introduction of contraflow cycle lane on Harleyford Road and a nearside bus lane on Vauxhall Bridge to benefit cyclists.  Has negligible impact on traffic or bus station capacity.

Disadvantages summary:

Loss of one bus stop, no improvements to public realm or increase in public space and increased pedestrian congestion.

[Hmm, that options looks atrocious really, doesn't it?  Might as well be called "do nothing"!]

6) One Way:  Do something

This involves moving and relocating the bus station next to railway viaduct, replacing existing buildings. 

Advantages summary:

Improvement to cyclists by simplification of Vauxhall Bridge/Albert Embankment Junction.  Consolidated public realm and new public square at Undegeround station entrance.  Removal of buses from South Lambeth Place, making it a shared cyclist/pedestrian route.  Widened footways on South Lambeth and Wandsworth Rds.  Introduction of contraflow cycle lane on Harleyford Road and a nearside bus lane on Vauxhall Bridge to benefit cyclists.

Disadvantages summary:

10% reduction of vehicular traffic required in the mornings.  Existing buildings would need to be removed.  Bus station is completely separated by entry and exit routes from Underground station.  Bus station structure would need to be removed and capacity reduced.  Increased pedestrian congestion.

7) One way: Do something (else)

Consolidation of Public Square at Vauxhall undeground station, but with retention of bus station.  Bus station will become shorter to allow buses to enter from Kennington Lane.  New pedestrian crossing on Wandsworth Road.

[Option 7) should probably be looked at carefully.  The study notes that parts of this option were added at quite a late stage, making it a likely strong contender for TFL]

Advantages summary:

Improvement to cyclists by simplification of Vauxhall Bridge/Albert Embankment Junction.  Consolidated public realm and new public square at Undegeround station entrance.  Improved conditions for cyclists by reduction of left turn from Wandsworth Road on to Vauxhall Bridge Rd.  Increased public realm.  New crossing from St George Wharf to central gyratory area.  Lots of additional pedestrian crossings. Introduction of contraflow cycle lane on Harleyford Road and a nearside bus lane on Vauxhall Bridge to benefit cyclists.

Disadvantages summary: 17% reduction of morning vehicular traffic, and 8% reduction of evening vehicular traffic.  Reduced bus station capacity.  Pedestrian congestion likely to increase in vicinity of Nine Elms Lane, Wandsworth Road  and bus station.  Train station entrances remain separated by carriageway.  Bus station separated from underground station, requiring pedestrians to cross busy carriageway (ARGH!)

Now, those are my written sketches.  If you've managed to make it this far, I congratulate you.  I think it's time for a public consultation, but I challenge people to continue to keep asking the question of entitlement.  Who benefits from what you propose, both concerning Vauxhall gyratory and in wider society, and do they deserve to benefit?

Lambeth Council axes Vauxhall Nine Elms community forums in favour of expos costing £7500

If you want to know more about the VNEB and the intensive development to take place in the area over the next 20 years, I recommend you take a look at the gigantic Mayor's Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

Back in May, I wrote a post about why the Kennington Association Planning Forum think the VNEB proposals are fatally flawed.  Essentially, they think they've identified a £588 million funding blackhole in the infrastructure. £200 million of that is the value of land that the developers might have to purchase to ensure the area is brought up to Lambeth's minimum green space standard.  We've yet to hear how the issue of green space might be addressed...

In the meantime, a community forum for consulting the local community about the whole VNEB area was launched by Lambeth's Nine Elms Vauxhall Strategy Board.  An initial wide-area-community forum meeting was held in Jan 2011.  It was discussed briefly at the Kennington Oval Vauxhall (KOV) meeting in April, where Maureen Johnston noted that she'd been involved in discussions on behalf of KOV about the possible shape of the forum.  Later, a second community meeting took place in May 2011, (announced by Princes Ward Labour councillers) here.  I didn't make it to that, but the minutes indicate that much of the meeting was taken up with strongly worded requests by residents to remove the Vauxhall gyratory (more on that in the next post) and residents' opposition to the Northern Line Extension.  The Friends of Vauxhall Park also wanted to engage with working groups on the matter of the linear park. 

In the meantime, PAPER NO. SB 11 - 35 from the VNEB Strategy Board meeting in June allows:

"The previous approach for community engagement presented by Lambeth to the Strategy Board on 26th January 2011, involved setting up an area-wide community forum that would meet a number of times of year."

Sounds good.  Sounds sensible.  Area-wide meetings ensure that lots of stakeholders meet together to ensure that no area is getting a better deal than another.  And even better, as was agreed by the earlier forums...

"The proposals also suggested establishing themed community working groups alongside the strategy board’s working groups, that would then have representatives from the community sitting on them."

Perfect.  It would be possible just to go to meetings about areas of the strategy that you felt affected you eg. transport or school or health.  The experts in the community in each area would be able to attend specific themed working groups.  But, that is no longer to be because...

"There would... be an onus on community representatives to attend numerous working groups covering technical matters that may not deal with key policy issues and concerns they are most interested in."

Umm, no.  That was the whole point of the themed groups.  The report does note, correctly, that community groups don't work according to strict borough boundaries (thank goodness). It also cites resource issues, but aren't we all trying to learn to do things co-operatively and on a shoe-string?  The new idea doesn't look cheap.  Consequently...

"It was agreed that establishing a formal Community Engagement Group with community representatives and others partners should not be progressed."

Oh dear.  What might the real reason be?

"The likelihood is that such a Group would involve a small number of the more active community groups." and "it would risk excluding hard- to-reach groups."

Well, yes.  That's democracy.  That's co-operation.  If you're active and engaged, and attend meetings, and track what the council is doing, and submit feedback on planning matters, and attend library seminars etc. etc. etc. then, yes, a group is likely to contain engaged citizens who have something to contribute to their local community.  How dangerous!  How radical!  I acknowledge that the Council needs to work hard to contact and dialogue with hard to reach groups, but that shouldn't be at the expense of those who conscientously show up to meetings and participate...  So, what's the new plan?

"Therefore, an alternative approach is recommended where the Working Groups would present to the community at a variety of ‘events’ in or close to the Opportunity Area."

A long-term die-hard community activist friend of mine said to me, "oh yes, councils love Expos, where everybody turns up at different times and note inconsequential views on little post-it notes that people stick up on a board. These are often off-topic and later ignored.  It allows the Councils to say that they've consulted, but not have to sustain any deep level of engagement, participation or criticism with community groups".  Does that sound about right?

"The events would tend to be more informal than a conference or committee meeting with presentations but more like a ‘symposium’ with the aim of collecting the views on a key topic from a wide range of people..."

We can now look forward to two tiers of events.  Cross-borough VNEB expos and community style events costing £5000-£7500 a time (tier one).  Tier two (at least at the Lambeth end) seems at first to be slightly more acceptable, with a localised "Lambeth Community Forum" which will be shaped by existing forum leaders (probably Kennington Oval Vauxhall forum) until you find out that attendees are a rather select band of people... "by invitation to existing forum leaders and leaders of recognised community groups."  Great.

The Lurker isn't impressed.  Anybody know what's going on?  Well word on the ground is that it was due to Cllr Sally Prentice's move from Regeneration and Planning to Employment and Enterprise.  The new Regeneration and Planning Committee member is Cllr Nigel Haselden, so perhaps he's the one to ask.

Can anybody offer a defence?  The expo idea appears to me to weaken community group input and atomise attendee participation.  It will be difficult to establish consensus or disagreement, as people will just turn up and leave again without having to listen to one anothers' views.  Difficult questions and hedging answers won't be heard by an entire room of people, and it's not exactly possible to minute conversations at the Expos.  Very convenient.

Yes it is true, no it isn't true: Michaela Free School debate continued (Part 2)

See here for Part 1 of the Michaela Free School debate, held on 18th July, in which Katharine Birbalsingh and a number of members of the school's steering committee made the case about why the proposed Michaela Free School would be good for Lambeth.  Part 2 in this post, is the questions and answers that arose as a result of the presentation.  I've added the names of questioners and people that added general views, where known, and have summarised questions and answers as far as possible and then grouped them next to one another.

Disturbance to local community?

Qn from older man:  "I am a local resident and heard about this only yesterday.  Do we want a school where after 5 years, there will be 800 youngsters messing around here.  I don't want the school.  When you say, it will be good for the community, which community are you talking about?  You don't live here."

KB:  'I know that a number of local people... are concerned about children behaving badly around the estate.  We're keen on excellent discipline and high standards. I'll speak to you in more detail about holding children to account and involving parents in school. One of the big things is the extended day.  If children get out at 3.30pm, there's more of a chance that they're going to behave in that kind of fashion.'

Ndubuisi Kejeh (member of Michaela Steering Committee): 'I went to Archbishop Tenison's School, and I was in school when the old Lilian Baylis was on site. In my Year 7, we needed the teachers of both schools to intervene because the Year sevens of my school were the targets, and every day before and after school, we would be victims of robbery... If I didn't believe that the new school would have measures to counteract behaviour like that, I wouldn't be sitting here.'

How free are Free Schools?

Qn from a woman with an educational background:  'A lot of your information was wrong...  Schools have been free to make their own decisions since Local Management of Schools was introduced in 1988.  In every State School the decisions are made by the governing body, many of whom are parents.  Decisions are not made by the Local Education Authority.  A Free School... will be free from local authority constraints, but will still have to obey constraints of central government, which is worse, because it's removing accountability from the very parents you're saying you want to help.  Also...have you undergone the professional training to become a head teacher?'

KB: 'Over the years, some schools have gained more freedoms, but there are different types of schools with different levels and types of freedoms.  Free schools are like Academies in the way they run.  It is not the case that ordinary maintained schools have the same freedoms.  They're not free to have an extended day, they can't do that.'

Interjection from same questioner:  'Yes, they are.  I don't know where you get your information from, but you're incorrect.'

KB: 'Heads of schools that have become... academies will explain various changes that they've been able to make because of those freedoms. Ultimately, if however, what you were saying is true, then we're opening a school just like any other school.'

KB:  'I have the NPQH (head teacher qualification).  However, I may not be the head of this school.  It is proposed that I might be.  It all depends on the Department for Education.'

Anna Tapsell: 'Can I ask whether it is the Department For Education that appoint the head?'

KB: 'From what I understand.'  

Interjection from previous questioner:  'Well, that makes it very different from other schools, then.'

Do U.S. Charter Schools have track record?

Qn from young male with education background: 'I don't doubt your commitment towards education.  But if you look at what happened with Free Schools in America... a lot of schools became even worse sink schools.  In the system, some schools go ahead, and some drop behind because of the intake problem.  You're saying that having your school up here will not affect the rest of Lambeth... I'd like to know what mechanisms you have in place to ensure your intake would be representative of the area...'

Daisy (member of Michaela Free School Steering Committee):  'You're right.  American charter schools are not an unalloyed success.  However, the ones that have been successful are the ones  that have been in extreme areas of educational deprivation. Kathryn mentioned Geoffrey Canada.  I'd also ask you to look at KIPP, the Knowledge Is Power program.  Both are in inner-city and difficult areas.'

Answer from young male with education background: 'Theose are one or two examples. My point is that the system does create an inequality between the schools being set up.'

Daisy (member of Michaela Free School Steering Committee):  'KIPP and Geoffrey Canada are not one school, but seven schools.  You're right in that  not every charter school is succesfuly.  But what we can take from them is a model of success...  So if you're saying, "how are we going to do things?", we have an example...'

Discipline and ethos at proposed Michaela Free School

Qn from Fred (Ethelred Community Centre):  '... how are we going to contribute a wider understanding to all of the cultures, because the demography is getting wider and wider in our society..?  I have witnessed... that we are employing doormats (that's terminology street talk from the kids) at school. We see police in uniform at school gates.   I want to know what form of discipline is going to implemented to avoid what we have now.'

Related qn from Anna Tapsell: 'What is it in the ethos and philosophy of your idea that makes you confident that you can deal with all of the things that the gentlemen [Fred] has expressed and have a well-disciplined school?'

Ndubuisi Kejeh (Steering Committee): 'I've been privileged to have gone to schools with several different types of discipline. Although born and bred mostly in the UK, I did go to school in Nigeria where there is corporal punishment.  The difference between the schools I've attended is level of consistency. With consistency, after a while, you get a culture. What we would hope to do in this school is not cane people, but work with the parents and contact parents, and have a document that the parents would have to sign so that they were kept informed of what the child was doing. Also, what we'd do is in the first year is have year sevens only. From primary school. These children would be immersed in the new culture. Their parents would continue this culture. This, I think, is a very good way to try to discipline and make a culture.'

KB: 'We talked about high standards of discipline, high standards of expectation from the children, soft skills in terms of manners.  Sometimes if a school were to  exclude a naughty child for the day, but the school don't want them to sit at home and watch television, they send them to a next door school, and are reciprocal.  In that way, schools support each other.'

Qn from male teacher: 'I'm a teacher, and I teach maths.  I've never heard of such a thing.'

KB: 'Schools do it all the time.  This is one example.  I'm giving an example of ways in which schools support each other.  There are other ways.  St Martin's have done it.  Dunraven have done it.  Tenison's have done it.'

Daisy (member of Michaela Free School Steering Committee):  'Part of the ethos would be provision of the extended day, until 5pm.  Another thing would be summer school.  There's lots of research about how pupils from deprived backgrounds fall back more over summer, so one of the things we want to do is have a two-week summer school.  Free schools do have a bit more freedom to adapt the curriculum to their pupils' individual needs...'

[Here it would be useful to hear from any teachers reading the blog on a point of fact.  Is it true that schools do swap "naughty" students for the day instead of excluding them and sending them home?  It seemed odd that some teachers prsent had not heard of the practice, but I've no idea whether this is common in Lambeth.]

Intake at proposed Michaela Free School

Qn from young male with education background:  I want to know about the intake.

Daisy (member of Michaela Free School Steering Committee):  Free Schools have to abide by an admissions code.  We want to take the Fair banding route approach, so we ensure a representative intake.  The pupils who apply are split into 5 bands academically, and you take the same percentage from each band.  The Deapartment For Education decide the banding system on a nationwide basis.

KB: I admire your concerns. You're worried a free school will pop up, and all of the clever kids will want to go there..  I admire your sentiment because you're worried about the other schools.  But we want to implement banding.  We're not expecting all students to go to unviersity.  We would want to ensure our intake was completely comprehensive.  The committee are really committed to inner city kids.

Grateful parent
Woman sitting at the front:  My question has been answered.  I was going to thank you all for the wonderful work you're doing with the community... 

[I'm pretty sure this woman wasn't a plant from team-pro-Michaela, but she was the only person who wasn't from the committee/volunteer group who expeessed a positive view, so in the interest of balance, I've include it.]

Farcical Dispute with Councillor concerning Lambeth Secondary School Admissions

Cllr Mark Harrison (Princes Ward and chair of Scrutiny Commitee for Children and Young Peoples, Lambeth Council):   I challenge this idea that Lambeth has a shortage of 500 secondary places. That's not accurate.  About 500 pupils go to school outside outside the Borough, but that's not the same as  a shortage of 500 places.  We have a shortage of places in the south of the Borough.  But we have a site at Fenstanton Primary school, Tulse Hill, which we're turning into a new Academy that will meet demand pressures.  There is no shortage of secondary school places in the north of the Borough.  We have two excellent local secondary schools, Lilian Baylis and Archbishop Tension's, which are rated good with outstanding features by Ofsted.  Creating a glut of places in this area will have a negative effect on those two schools.  It's a waste of public money to provide places in a place where we don't need places, and it risks, one of the three schools becoming unviable due to pupil shortage.  I might be welcomiong a Free School if built in Streatham or Brixton or Norwood, but not up here.  It could do serious damage to others schools in the area.

Man in audience: Don't forget the new Academy opening at Durand School and the enormous new Academy opening on Archbishop Michael Ramsey site, bordering Lambeth and Southwark which will have a 50/50 intake.  We're also seeing a collapsing role at Charles Edward Brooke as children don't go there.  So this demand for places argument does need to be addressed.

KB: Southwark also has a massive shortage of places. In actual fact, it's about 800 pupils who don't stay in Lambeth for school. That's because some of them choose to leave the borough. This year, there were 452 year 6 pupils who did not get a place at a Lambeth School.

Cllr Harrison: No, every young person who applied for a place in a Lambeth secondary school got a place.

KB: That's not true.

Cllr Harrison: That is true.

KB: That's not true.

Cllr Harrison: That is true.

KB: If you look at the figures, that just isn't true.

[I'd be intrigued to hear from both sides about which figures were used to determine whether all Lambeth year 6 pupils were given a place at a Lambeth School.  In the previous article in the Telegraph, Birbalsingh claimed 433 students Year 6 didn't get places, so I'm concerned about a lack of consistency in the way the figures are being measured.  Feel free to leave both sets of figures in the comments for further analysis so I can help readers with no educational background].

Cost of site and risk to local schools of enforced government purchase

Cllr Steven Morgan (Princes Ward):  You mentioned that bidding for the former Lilian Baylis site is closed but should [the government] have had a chance to bid, would they have been able to match the best bid?  As we understand it, the government's got a fund of about £50 million to buy sites and refurbish. Assuming £2.5 million were allocated per site and land prices are high in inner cities (where there's demand), they won't be able to build more than 20 schools... As a council, we're worried that they will approach us and won't pay market rate for the site, and will want a big discount.  The problem with that is that the money for the site is going to go back into education to the capital programmes for Lambeth schools. It will be other schools losing out if the government buys that site for cheap.  Can you confirm the government would pay market value for the site?  

KB: All I know is what partnership for schools told me.  The £2 million mark didn't seem unreasonable to them.  I can't say how much money is involved.  I don't know that kind of detail.  I am guessing that no more than 30 free schools will end up being passed through for 2012.  I gather there were 291 applications, but I suspect the vast majority get through the application process. Ppartnership For Schools are keen on talking to the council about the site.

[I already speculated in part 1 that I think the site is worth well over £8 million.  And I'm pretty sure repairing it will cost £10 million, so it may be that the site is unusable (it's said to be riddled with aesbestos).  But, politically, this will be very interesting...]

Council option to extend bidding time by 6 weeks to allow Michaela Free School to bid?
Michael Poole-Wilson (local Conservative candidate in 2010): 'My question is directed to Cllr Steven Morgan re. achieving market rate for the former Lilian Baylis Site.  Would you be prepared to postpone the tender process to the autumn so that you could see whether funding could be matched, or is it an academic question because you're going to give the site to the highest bidder before September.

Cllr Steven Morgan: I'd be happy to ask Steve Reed, leader of Lambeth to delay, if you can get Michael Gove to announce that he'll pay market rates for all sites they wish to buy tomorrow morning.

Michael Poole-Wilson (local Conservative candidate in 2010):  The site has been sat there, unsold for 5 or 6 years, so we're saying a few months more won't make a difference

Cllr Mark Harrison: It make a big difference because we need to realise the saving in year. We have budgeted to dispose of that site and bring in capital receipt which is going to be invested into the capital programme in the rest of Lambeth schools.

[Of course, it is quite believable, given the cost savings Lambeth and other local authorities need to find, that 6 weeks could make a difference (but it looks like a weak argument, given the amount of time the site has sat empty).  However (and this is a huge problem), it's not at all clear that Lambeth can sell in this financial year given (see below) because it appears they might need permission from the Secretary of State to sell the site.  And it's fairly obvious to most people that Michaela Free School has several well-positioned "friends".  I see a huge political row brewing here...  I reckon Lambeth will be trying to rush through the bidding process now, but it might make no difference if the Secretary of State refuses permission to sell!]

Question of importance of distance between student and school
KB: ...We want to help children to travel as little as possible.  If Lambeth has a school site in the south of the borough, then we'd like to consider it.  But there are no potential schools sites.  If you have a choice between a school in the north of the borough or no school at all, it seems crazy to choose no school at all.

Anna Tapsell:  My children were young in the days of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA).  We didn't feel strongly about sending our children to school in Lambeth.  There was a lot to be said for the ILEA system because it gave parents an enormous amount of choice.  There is a history to all of this, which is not about neglect or good work, but what was left when the ILEA was disbanded.

View from woman at back of audience:  'We've gotten you to accept the need for places is at the south of the borough.  Actually, travelling from Streatham to here is a lot further than travelling out of borough to the nearest school.  When my kids went to school, the local Kennington primary schools were feeder schools for Pimlico school.  I don't see any problem with that.  I'd actually much rather they did that than had to travel down to Streatham for school, which is what you're expecting Streatham parents to do.' 

Dasiy (Michaela steering commitee member):  ' Crossing a borough boundary is not necessarily the be all and end all.   All I would say is that speaking to a lot of parents on the door step, for some of them, it isn't just that they live across from a borough boundary that happens to be on their street.  Some of them do feel that they're sending their children a very long way, to Battersea, to Croydon...'

Katharine Birbalsingh's relationship with teaching unions
Qn from young male with education background: Will you carry over your antagonistic/abusive relationship with the teaching unions into your management of the school?  Would you  continue to write in the national press about the unions and managing a school...?

KB:  I'm obviously entitled to hold opinions...  I don't know if what you say is accurate.  But you're entitled to your opinion.  I haven't really considered continuing writing yet.  That's way off in the future...

Answer from young male with education background: KB's views seem to have been imported from the American free school system... the idea that unions eer evil, and one of the reasons why schools are so awful.  I think that is a worrying attitude to take towards organised teachers.  Teachers' means of organisation is a means of ensuring the school is accountable, that their livelihoods and work isn't put at risk... 

Daisy (steering commitee member): I have been a union rep.  I do think unions have a role to play in education and in wider society.  One of the thing that attracted me, as a rank and file classroom teacher, to someone like KB is the support she gives to teachers facing the daily problems that teachers face in schools.  I can't answer about the national press... My perspective would also be that I'm not sure the unions treated KB very well either.

Suitability of former Lilian Baylis site
Anna Tapsell: Is the listing something that also affects the way in which any developer will look at it?
Cllr Mark Harrison: Yes. being listed dramatically reduces what you can do with the site.  The reason the Lilian Baylis moved is because the school building is not really suitable for a modern secondary school.

The future, given the closure of the site bidding process

Woman from team-pro-Michaela:  I'm a former chair of governors at a primary school, and this evening, I was planning to bring a parent-govenor with me... We had a big black plastic bag full of letters of support for this free school idea.  People couldn't care less about location of the school.  I live inthe centre of Brixton, and a lot of local children are going to Wimbledon.  The distance makes no difference whatsoever to us.  We just want to see something new.  We've seen a correlation between excluded children and ending up in crime.  We can get the support from the community.  We're not representing any particular political party.  We haven't got an axe to grind.  Why can't we give her the chance?  But what happens in a situation where Lambeth appear to have put the siteup for sale?

KB: Unfortunately, the councillors who are here seem to be confirming that they plan on making sure it's gone to developers before 6 weeks are through... I think it's a great shame.

David Boardman (Kennington Association Planning Forum):  The Deparment for Education are normally pretty sticky-fingered when it comes to educational land, and normally you need the Secretary of State's consent if you are to treat land as surplus to educational requirements.  Has the Sec of State consented to the sale of the site?  Has it been declared surplus to educational requirements?  

Cllr Mark Harrison:  Not to my knowledge.  And obviously that's an issue. As far as we're concerned, it is surplus to educational requirements.  It's a technical question.

Response from David Boardman: If you haven't an appropriate, necessary consent, then anybody can make representation to the Secretary of State to say, "wait a bit please"

Cllr Mark Harrison: That it has consequences for the rest of Lambeth schools that require investment from our capital programme.

Summing up

Anna Tapsell:  Thanks to all for coming.  The Kemnnington Association is a mixture of individuals with different views.  We'll go away and talk about this.  We learned a lot from you coming, so thank you to everybody for coming.  

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.

Heart of Kennington Cross: St Anselm's Pathways Project submitted

(Photo taken from Planning Application shown below)

Last week, St Anselm's Church finally submitted their Pathways project to Lambeth Council for planning consent- reference 11/01826/FUL.  Revd Angus Aagaard of St Anselm's welcomes comments, so as usual, go and click the "submit comments" link to submit your views to Lambeth.  I've documented the Pathways project very thoroughly in the past, procuring videos here and then publicising full .pdfs of the the plans from the second wave of consultation.  The proposal involves converting the underused church into a focal community building at the heart of Kennington Cross.  It which will house a nursery, a restaurant partly run by ex-offenders (similar to The Clink, as run in HMP Highdown), a project to provide access to university for people that might not consider attending, a new community hall, business units, residential units and a church. If you've not read the previous posts, take a look at the posters below prior to submitting comments. I've uploaded the full planning application site plans below the poster.

Vauxhall: Spring Gardens robbery, Linear Walkway cancelled, Ugly pillars completed and Vauxhall City Farm small animals for sale

p

(Photo taken from SE11 Action Team (Labour) Princes' Ward Councillors blog)

Well, it's all go in Vauxhall this week.  A shooting on Tyers Street (victim ok), a major fire on Salamanca Place (no serious injuries), a consultation on Spring Mews (proposed hotel/student development near Spring Gardens), and a whole host of smaller stories as follows...

1.  Twitter has been all ablaze this week with a report that two men were violently robbed on Sunday 3rd of July at 1:40am whilst walking along next to Spring Gardens / Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens.  The victims were returning home when set upon by about 8 men, some of whom were on bikes.  One of the victims suffered serious facial injuries.  The robbery took place after Pride, but it was not considered to be an homophobic incident.  Anybody who was around that evening and might have witnessed the crime should call DC Annabel Davenport from Lambeth Priority Crime Unit on 020 8649 2477 or contact Crime Stoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111. 

I'd urge residents, visitors and revellers to be very careful in the early mornings (between 1am and 6am) because this area is regularly deserted and revellers are easy targets for muggers.  In preference to short-cutting through the park at that time, it's better to stick to the main roads (Kennington Lane and Albert Embankment) if at all possible.

2.  Transport Mark has been very observant and has noticed that the proposed Vauxhall Linear Walkway, part of a CLS development, which might have entailed the removal of Vauxhall ski slope bus station, appears now to be off the cards.  In a letter from GL Hearn Property Consultants to the Senior Planner at Lambeth Council, we learn that there exists "a revised scheme which no longer includes an elevated walkway".  So... bye-bye Linear walkway, and hello to some, as yet unannounced scheme that may or may not include demolishing Vauxhall gyratory and replacing it with some unknown thing that is yet to be unveiled in a consultation that hasn't yet been announced.

3.  The Vauxhall Linear walkway may be off the drawing board, but linear parks are all the rage.  Cllr Mark Harrison is soliciting views on the possibility of converting Tyers Street (not sure whether that's all or part) into a linear park.  A full consultation and public letters will be forthcoming if the idea is proceedable, but if you have any early views, do get in touch with him.

4.  The ugly pillars / giant cigarette butts or striking columns (delete as applicable) have been completed and named as the entrance to Spring Gardens / Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens.  Talk about a massive waste of money.  I will not repeat the conversation I heard earlier this week about contacting Dulux to use them for an advertising campaign!  Needless to say, they are, in my view, horrific and entirely out of keeping with other local buildings.  But since Vauxhall is suffering from architectural mish-mash issues generally, it probably won't matter too much.  It has taken absolutely ages (a year?) to erect the monstrosites and it's really good to have the entrance to Spring Gardens fixed (just in time) for summer.  SE11 Action Team Princes' Ward Councillors (Labour) blog reported the finished master piece and there's more info over there.  Apparently, we're to endure an opening ceremony soon....

5.  Tradescant Road reports that the gates to Vauxhall Park which were fixed and then hit by a motorcycle have finally been fixed again.  Hurray!

6.  Cabrini Children's Centre... I'm afraid I don't know much about this one, but a petition has been launched to prevent the closure of Vauxhall's Cabrini Children's Centre.  I had no idea what this was or that it even existed, but I think it is part of the Catholic settlement project at St Anne's Community Centre, 40-46 Harleyford Road.  They're aiming their petition at Lambeth Council and the trustees of the charity.  If you've more info. and want it publicised, drop me a line (details in About Me / Contact).

7.  The Commission for Architecture and Built Environment have waded into the "there's no masterplan for the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea high towers mess", which I was going to expand upon, but Tradescant Road has a great piece on his blog, so I recommend that you go and read it there since much of the info. above is behind a pay wall.  Essentially, CABE are hoping to bring all of the Vauxhall developers together to (hopefully) stop the skyscrapers being submitted to Lambeth/Wandsworth in such an adhoc manner.  If only CABE had been reading Lurking about SE11, they could have started planning earlier...

8.  Vauxhall City Farm are selling off some of their small animals.  £35 for a pair of baby guinea pigs, £40 for a giant rabit (eek!) and chickens of varying sizes/prices.  For more info, phone 0207 582 4204 and ask to speak to Jo, or just go and visit them on the farm.