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...).

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?

Community Forum for Vauxhall Nine Elms - April KOV Meeting (Part 2)

Click for Part 1 of the VNEB discussion at April 2011's Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall (KOV) Forum meeting.

As you might have observed, the VNEB discussion at April's KOV meeting was extensive. The second section consisted in an update from Maureen Johnson about the part KOV will be playing in consultation, and questions from the floor to Cllr Mark Harrison.

Community Forum – April 2011 Update

Ms Johnson noted that since the January 2011 community meeting on the future of the VNEB Community Forum, she (on behalf of KOV) had met with the Stockwell Partnership. There then followed a meeting with Sandra Roebuck, Paul Ewing (Regeneration), Clive Fraser and the chair of a tenants' forum to map out the shape of a Community Forum. No decisions were made, but an exploration about informing residents took place and proposals were suggested in outline form. KOV and Stockwell Partnership have begun the process, although Ms Johnson was at pains to state that neither body will be the VNEB Community Forum. KOV/Stockwell Partnership will circulate the proposed Aims and Terms of Reference for the new Forum, which will be open to community groups, but won't contain Lambeth officers.

Structure and future of VNEB discussions

The VNEB project will be led by a Strategy Board. Underneath the board, various working groups will exist. The working groups won't be open to the Community Forum as they're technical bodies that must contain Council Officers. Cllr Harrison interjected that the Strategy Board has committed that all officers in working groups will have a duty to report to the Community Forum. Ms Johnson noted that the VNEB project/forum will be part of a twenty year process!!

Questions/Observations

I really dislike audience members making long observations that ramble ever onwards with no constructive end, especially when people are badly informed. Consequently, I've not detailed all of the observations and those that appear as follows are in outline...

Qn Audience member 1: 'The removal of the gyratory must happen first because otherwise the regeneration will be rubbish.... I also recommend the monitoring of pollution around Vauxhall. Accessing technical information is a priority. A rough comparison between infrastructure in place at Canary Wharf compared with that proposed for Vauxhall would be instructive.”

Answer from Cllr Mark Harrison: 'Removing the gyratory as soon as possible is the priority. The reason CLS proposed their raised walkway, which we're not keen on (and probably won't happen) is because they say they can't develop their site until pedestrian flow is resolved. Sorting out the gyratory is essential for that site... Vauxhall Cross has terrible air pollution which points towards the necessity of sorting out the gyratory...'

Anna Tapsell (Kennington Association) made a brief representation on the lack of consultation or inadequacy of consultation on health and community policing on the Lambeth side.

Cllr Jack Hopkins (Oval Ward) observed re. policing that an original study had proceeded down Wandsworth Road to Clapham, including many of Lambeth's poorest estates. Yet, apparently, when the study was returned, it had a much smaller geographical footprint, since the cost of policing infrastructure for the original footprint would have been too great. On health, Cllr Hopkins added that he'd recently spoken to a Stockwell GP, who had observed that only certain parts of Lambeth PCT had been consulted on VNEB, and that there is massive NHS strain existing at present on Wandsworth Road.

Qn Audience member 2: 'How will we stop the Northern Line Extension sucking Section 106 monies from Vauxhall developments? Residents are being harassed by endless planning applications which indicates that developers, and not Lambeth, are setting the agenda...'

Answer from Cllr Mark Harrison: 'Ultimately, Lambeth is still the Planning Authority, and will request the infrastructure Lambeth needs. Local infrastructure will be funded before money is used for anything else. Lambeth will have to make a contribution to the Northern Line Extension if it takes place, but money won't be pumped into it if Lambeth doesn't get school places or Vauxhall Cross isn't made liveable. Lambeth is still the Planning Authority and can still negotiate its own Section 106 agreements.

One reason that so many Lambeth planning applications have been submitted is because the VNEB levies haven't been set, so developers are rushing in early. With every planning application processed, Lambeth are negotiating a Section 106 agreement (some of several million pounds), with all monies going to Lambeth. In future, the VNEB levy might raise money that would also go to Wandsworth. So, for Lambeth, early planning decisions might be good or might be bad. It's debatable.'

Finally, ex-Wandsworth Councillor Jeffe Jeffers observed that VNEB was “a 1970s plan being built in the 21st century” that was based on developer needs without an in-depth strategic analysis of London needs. He noted particular concern about the lack of industrial space in the proposal because the proposed Thessally Rd industrial space is tiny. He added that VNEB will consist of a series of high rise buildings for which the nearest lift repair business is 23 miles away!

Campaign to remove Vauxhall gyratory and Lambeth commits to 40% social housing in Vauxhall Nine Elms Area (Part 1)

The main part of the April KOV meeting concerned the future of the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area and plans for a Community Forum to work with Lambeth Council and other VNEB partners.

Cllr Mark Harrison (Princes Ward) spoke first by announcing his appointment on the VNEB Strategy Board to represent Lambeth Councillors. Cllr Harrison remarked positively, “We don't have a choice in the matter [of VNEB]; it will happen whether we like it or not”. The Strategy Board consists Wandsworth Council, Lambeth Council, the Mayor, TFL and the various landowners in Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea.

For ease of reading, I've divided Cllr Harrison's remarks into several sub-headings, so you can just read the parts you're interested in...

New Lambeth Officers for VNEB

Cllr Harrison reflected that, for the last few years, Lambeth Council had neglected VNEB and left it to Planning Officers. Lambeth have now appointed an executive director (Sue Foster) and a new officer (Sandra Roebuck) to focus on VNEB issues. The project, Cllr Harrison noted, should now gain strategic direction and focus upon Lambeth's regeneration.

Community Forum

Back in January 2011, local residents were invited to an initial meeting on establishing a VNEB Community Forum for Lambeth. Since then, Cllr Harrison noted that there had been a lull at Lambeth as the project was transferred from Planning to Regeneration. Lambeth Council hope that Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall (KOV) forum and Stockwell Partnership will work with Lambeth on community engagement. Indeed, the Community Forum will meet again in May [it was unclear whether this is high level members from KOV/Stockwell or all residents] to discuss a community engagement proposal from the Stockwell partnership, and be provided with an update from the Strategy Board.

VNEB Consultations Soon to Launch

Consultations are about to begin, one from TFL on the Northern Line Extension (9^th May), and one by Lambeth Council on the finalisation of Vauxhall's Supplementary Planning document.

VNEB Strategy Board transparency

Cllr Harrison remarked that he had persuaded the Strategy Board to publish all of their papers online (very good news!) so that residents can access information and the discussions will not exclude them.

Northern Line Extension Funding Paper

Cllr Harrison observed that the Northern Line Extension is pushing forward... An audience member interjected that the NLE represented a disadvantageous “split” on account of having to change lines, rather than an “extension”. [Actually, most trains on the Charing Cross branch seem to effectively terminate at Kennington at present any way.] Cllr Mark Harrison argued valiantly that the NLE was an advantage on the basis of increased train frequency, and reiterated, “It will happen whether we like it or not”. According to Cllr Harrison, a NLE paper has been commissioned on alternative funding options to Section 106 contributions. One idea is for tax incremental funding so that future business rates in Wandsworth could be used to pay for the NLE.

VNEB rebranding
More controversially (KOV audience members were in uproar), a branding exercise for the area has been commissioned at the behest of Wandsworth landowners. The Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area is felt to be a terrible phrase, so they want a better way of describing the area. Lambeth Council have made it that they will not be tied into its recommendations. Cllr Harrison felt that any branding produced would need to be acceptable to existing communities, which already have strong identities and histories, and cannot just be rebranded.

Social housing

Since the last strategy board, the Homes and Communities agency (social/affordable housing) has become involved in the scheme. The HCA will work out what government policy will mean for VNEB and enable Lambeth to deliver social and affordable housing. Cllr Harrison stated forcefully, “Lambeth is fully committed to 40% affordable housing target in all developments.” [The DIFs study says Lambeth is committed to 15%, but more of that in a future post.]

Future of Vauxhall Gyratory and Public Realm

Finally, the public realm working group chaired by Lambeth is under way. It will focus on improving Vauxhall Cross and “hopefully” removing the gyratory system as well as ensuring the Linear Park is a decent width and size. Lambeth Councillors have met separately about options for Vauxhall Cross gyratory. Cllr Harrison stated 3 options; “do nothing”, “do something”, and “remove the gyratory all together”. TFL have apparently put together a “do something” proposal [not one that residents are privy to, so that's something to request]. The councillors found it “quite impressive”, with plans to narrow roads, widen pavements, add pedestrian crossings, and improve public realm with trees etc. Cllr Harrison slightly hedged his bets saying that he thought [the TFL plan] “would make a big difference,” but then noted, “we're still going to push hard for removing the gyratory altogether.” The local councillors think that there will need to be a fundamental shift from Vauxhall being a motor vehicle junction to being a public space that prioritises people, bikes and buses. Cllr Harrison then admitted, “The Northern Line Extension doesn't particularly benefit Lambeth so at the Strategy Board level, we need to say, “you're [Wandsworth] getting your Northern line, we need Vauxhall Cross transformed”.

I hope to get Part 2 of this post written this evening; an update from Maureen Johnson (KOV Chair) and questions from the floor.

Also, there's a lot more local news to publish, but I'm currently on a short break so it will happen a little more gradually than usual!

What is the Vauxhall Business Improvement District and why is Kennington excluded? - KOV meeting writeup - Part 4

Continuing our series of "unofficial minutes" from Kennington Oval Vauxhall Forum (KOV) meeting (last month), today's write-up concerns the Vauxhall Business Improvement District (BID). The Means regeneration agency spent a spokeman, Mr Giles Semper to inform us of the proposed Vauxhall BID.  The Means promotes itself as "a regeneration and 'smarter travel' consultancy" and they like to think they're "good at making town and city centre areas better places to live in, work in and move around".  So, it's official... If the announcement of the rather expensive and ludicrously tall St George Tower hasn't regenerated the area and turned it into Voho, then we will be VoHo by the time we've been "improved".  This, of course, might not be such a bad thing.  Vauxhall is clearly the naughty school boy of the Thames who needs extra tuition and a good caning to show improvement and it does look a little rough around the edges at times (I blame the interchange), but couldn't the wider Kennington area benefit from this initiative?

I wondered from whence this sudden Business Improvement District enthusiasm in Vauxhall had emerged.  It seems that it's a Lambeth Council initiative, and Lambeth Council commissioned The Means to run a feasibility study on the matter. Anyhow, Giles Semper has a lengthy history working in the area (from 1997 - 1999), first co-ordinating the Vauxhall Employer's Group and working to regenerate St Peter's Church/Heritage Centre, which then hosted "Vision for Vauxhall" meetings.  The Means might be set to benefit from such an enterprise because they currently run the Better Bankside BID in London Bridge/Blackfriars.

On the face of it, a Business Improvement District sounds like a great idea.  Kennington Association, some months ago, tried to put Kennington businesses in touch with one another in a network, to keep in touch with the Council etc and to encourage a greater degree of co-operation. So, Lambeth Council's foray into this area should be encouraged, surely?  Maybe.  For local businesses, this promises to be a relatively mixed blessing (there's a question of cost versus benefit).  My concern is that the entire endeavour appears to be rather partisan, and biased in favour of regeneration of the Thames (favouring visitors rather than residents), rather than improvement of the area overall.

The problem is that the area which has been chosen for the BID is rather exclusive, and drawn up so as to include certain businesses that would be capable of large contributions.  Notice how the map that The Means have drawn up for the Council (marked by the orange line) stretches itself to include the Oval and Tesco, but fails to include any of the blue lines (drawn on by me) which are local and much valued shops used by local (and much valued) people.

The very long blue line, drawn at the top of the map, represents Lambeth Walk, a street that cis sadly neglected, but would be a fantastic place (especially the south end) to develop a joined up strategy for improvement.  The blue T-shape in the middle of my map indicates Vauxhall Street and Jonathan Street, that contains the Post Office which our community successfuly retained.  On those streets exists a mini cab firm, a hairdresser, a convenience store, and indeed, our very own butcher (P J Frankland) as well as other shops!  The lowest blue line on the map includes all of the busineses on Kennington Road (many estate agents and restaurants), and heads downwards to include Kennington Road post office, Barclays Bank, a funeral parlor, barber, insurance broker, a solicitor, a betting shop and several convenience stores.  Why are we not able to look at a business "improvement" district that includes Kennington?  The Oval is the Kennington Oval, not the Vauxhall Oval, and if the thing is going to extend down Kennington Lane to encompass Tesco, why wouldn't it go any further down?  Finally, the line at the bottom of the map shows where Kennington Park Road lines up with Clapham Road, and illustrates another parade of shops containing, amongst other, The Oval Lounge.  Why is the Oval cricket ground included when those businesses are not?  Essentially, because it would pay for the BID.  But the Oval's inclusion in a Vauxhall BID potentially excludes the possibility of its inclusion in a Kennington one, and thus the money is all directed at the Thames.

The following is a shortened version of what Giles Semper had to say:

"A BID is a company owned and led by businesses in a specific area, and it tries to improve that place as a commercial location.  A BID can only be set up if all businesses in the area vote in favour of it at a referendum. The organisation is funded by a tax which the businesses impose on themselves, which is a compulsory payment after a successful ballot.  Everything that the BID company does has to be extra to services provided by statutory providers such as police and council.  There are successful examples of BIDs down the South Bank; Team London Bridge, Better Bankside, Waterloo Quarter Business Improvement District; covers The Cut, Lower Marsh etc."

"The Means have spoken to 85 businesses (day and nigh time economy) in Vauxhall to discover the key issues in the area. The issues are similar with the night time businesses having additional issues to contend with.  4 key issues have been identified in the area:

1.  Protecting the area (fear of crime, environmental problems).
2. Engaging Vauxhall (bringing businesses together with residents around common themes, perhaps creating new opportunities for children and young people).  The businesses are keen to engage residents.
3.  Promoting the area as a visitor destination.  Historically, Vauxhall has been cut off from the rest of the South Bank.
4.  Transforming Vauxhall:  The traffic interchange and the environment around it.  The businesses are keen to work with other partners to see a better environment in Vauxhall."

"The tax on the business is based on the rateable value of individual commercial properties.  It's usually a percentage (1% or 1.5%).  The Means think that 250 of the largest businesses in Vauxhall could generate about £600k - £700k per year of investment, or £2.5 million to £3 million over the 5 year life of the BID."

"The Means have learned through experience at Baknside that any BID which thinks it can be parachuted in without reference to the residents has got a nasty shock coming. There are two resident board members in Bankside and desk space is gievn to the Bankside residents' forum.  The residents sit on all of the "theme groups" and the businesses are very active in a range of community engangement projects, some of which are very successful."

Tbere then followed an extended period of time for questions:
Q: Could you describe something that has been achieved in another area by a BID?

Giles Semper : 'There are 105 BIDs in UK and 25 in London and they're all different.  Most  BIDs tend to start with cleaning, greening and safety.  In Bankside, a team of dedicated cleaners have been put in place (seen in pink vehicles).  The cleaners tackle the kinds of problems that the Council's cleaners don't tackle eg. cobbled streets, tree pits, gum and jet washing.  Many BIDs operate some kind of uniformed service on the streets eg. rangers or wardens.  In Bankside, we have 7 wardens who operate 12 hours per day.  In Bankside, our best known project is the Bankside urban forest which is a design framework for the public realm between Bankside and the Elephant & Castle.  It's a partnership between the Council, the BID, Tate and some of the land owners, and challenges anybody that wants to develop to improve the standards of the public realm and develop to a high quality.'

Q: If a BID is set up, and is succesful in years 1 to 3, and businesses think it's great, but in the latter years, the businesses don't think it's good value for money.  What mechanism is there for them to end the agreement? 

Giles Semper: "The renewal ballot has to happen after 5 years.  The maximum term for any business on one ballot is 5 years.  Then follows a renweal ballot. The lesson from the US where these things were dreamed up is that they're usually more popular than less popular on renewal (and there hasn't been an unsuccessful renewal ballot in the UK yet)."

Q: Does it include Kennington businesses?

Giles Semper: "We haven't yet talked to the Kennington businesses to find out whether we should be one big thing, rather than two smaller ones."

Q: It's great that you consulted 85 businesses, with their different priorities.  At least some of the businesses want to get rid of homeless people and beggars, but the centre of Vauxhall is the centre of some major homelessness charities.  How will you link with those, rather than having the BID be a way of cleansing the area of people who live there?

Giles Semper: "The Bondway, Big Issue and other homelessness providers would be members of the Business Improvement District.  They would have as loud a say as any other party.  Our experience on the issue of homelessness in Bankside is that residents sharing their specific view that they don't want the homeless purged from the streets.  In that case, we work very closely with the Council's street population outreach team, and the approach is about housing people, and helping people, and not about kicking people out.  I do take your point though, because that's an endemic issue for Vauxhall.  The Chief Executive of the Big Issue did say to us, "do we not risk being the problem, rather than part of the solution?"  Those issues are on the table."

Q: I live quite close to Thames Reach.  I see homeless people who defecate in the corners of our parks.  I can't understand the idea of /not/ wanting to purge the streets of homelessness.

Giles Semper: "There are people who can address this issue with more knowledge than I can.  The Mayor has been trying to address the issue of homelessness pan-London."

Val Shawcross:  "One of the biggest problems we've got is that the E10 accession nationals; Eastern European workers who came to Britain to work, are not entitled to public funds or help.  So, when they fall homeless, they are not entitled to be given public housing, support or social security.  Lambeth has a contract with Thames Reach, Southwark with St Mungos, and there is some good professional work trying to outreach to Eastern European nationals, and where possible, to give them proper support to be repatriated and get into work, and deal with their problems.  People do not want to be living like that.  It's not just a housing issue, but an economic crisis."

Q: If new companies started in the Vauxhall area, would they have to sign up to being part of the BID, and are costs dependent on size of the business?

Giles Semper: "They would be brought in automatically. The businesses with bigger premises pay more than those with smaller premises.  A shop on Kennington Lane would pay £300 - £400 per year to the BID.  The police, the biggest employer in Vauxhall, would pay £80,000 - £90,000 per year.  Our largest payer in Bankside is Royal Bank of Scotland, who pay about £90,000."

Q: Would the developers building the big towers be contributing to the pot of money? 

Giles Semper: "It's currently the occupants, rather than owners who pay.  It's the other way around in the States...  The legislation to create land owner BIDS is being consulted on, and the mechnaism to tax owners, rather than occupiers may soon be available.  It would be a good one for Vauxhall!"

Q: Do you get more votes in the ballot if you have a larger rateable value?  If you're Tesco, do you get more votes? 

Giles Semper: "You have to win the BID ballot on two counts.  It's all on turnout, rather than constituency.  you need 51% of turnout by number and by aggregate rateable value.  So you add the rateable values together, and you need to get 51%.  So, the larger occupiers will have more influence on that part of the vote."

David Boardman (Kennington Association Planning Forum Chair) made a few comments and asked some questions: 

"1.  Is there any prospect of raising additional moeny for the BID in the Vauxhall area?  Is it amenable to Section 106? 

2.  People are clearly worried about crime in the area.  If I were the businesses, I'd be talking to the Borough Commander to say "put your resources where the crime is", and I wouldn't need to pay for extra wardens.  When the Council has had money in the past for Park Rangers, they've decided to give the money back to the police because they provided a better service for security.  Wouldn't it be better to pay for your own police, rather than wardens? 

3.  Kennington has its own Business Network so one doesn't need to have to have a BID to get businesses to talk. I'm not clear that the benefits of a BID are significant, from the 1%-1.5% raised, without drawing in extra funds. 

4. The main problem of Vauxhall is the gyratory.  Interesting that TfL will talk to businesses, but doesn't have the bottle to come and talk to the people.  We are concerned that TfL won't speak to the people who have the problem with it.  It should come to this forum for the community's views. 

5.  I have some reservations about the geographical coverage.  Why is the Oval inside, save for rateable value?"

Unfortunately, the Chair noted that there was no time to answer those questions (it was a very full agenda), but I'd be happy for anybody with knowledge about the proposal to add some comments to this post.  So, there we have it.