Beaufoy Building sold to Diamond Way Buddhism and Bellway Homes

Lambeth Council announced yesterday that a charity named Diamond Way Buddhism have exchanged contracts (not completed) with The Beaufoy Trust to purchase the Beaufoy Building and the land surrounding it on Black Prince Road.  Interestingly, at the KOV meeting yesterday, Diamond Way implied that they'd only recently been involved in the purchase and weren't involved in the earlier bidding process...  That might be worth digging deeper on.

Lambeth Council also owned the car park surrounding the Beaufoy, and contracts on this have been exchanged with Bellway Homes with plans for a residential development. 

Completion on both pieces of land will take place once planning permission has been obtained for both planned schemes.  The sale of the entire site is said to have generated £9 million, of which £7.5 will be awarded to Lambeth Council and £1.5 million to the Beaufoy Trust.  £200,000 has been earmarked for the local community, and the three ward councillors, with community input, will apparently be making the decisions about what the money should be spent on.

Diamond Way Buddhism plan to use the Beaufoy as a community facility, place of meditation/education (though not as a school) and residential accommodation. Ordinarily, they would run meditation sessions most evenings and sometimes debates.  Diamond plan a non commercial cafe for the building.  They will move in and begin work on the building and plan to open the building for tours as soon as it is safely possible.

At last night's KOV meeting, Diamond Way acknowledged that their centre would bring the total Buddhist centres in the area to three (the others are Jamyang on Renfrew Road and Kagyu Samye Dzong on Manor Place), which will make Kennington and surrounds a potential Buddhist hub.  Diamond are apparently similar to Jamyang, but differ in that Diamond are a lay organisation.  They've about 150 members in the UK, but are more popular abroad.  As soon as the news was announced, I received an email with a link through to here asking whether Diamond Way Buddhism was a cult...  Slightly worrying, but if you're concerned you can read one person's blog on the matter here and I found a somewhat wider debate over here which may not mean anything to people unless they've some idea of how Buddhism operates.

Bellway Homes plan to build 79 flats in the car park area, down from an originally proposed 89.  40% of the Bellway flats will be affordable housing, which entirely meets Lambeth's target.  As per last night's KOV meeting, they're also hoping to invest in a nearby playground.

Take a look at the diagrams from last night's meeting, if you didn't manage to make it there yourself. 

Please note that on the plan below, the grey building referred to as "Lilian Baylis Secondary School" is actually the Beaufoy!

The following are the plans and sketches from the Buddhist centre:

I've had lots of kind emails asking whether I've disappeared, so just to clarify... This is one of an occasional post that I hope to make on Lurking about SE11.  I'm not planning to blog in the same detail that I was before, but neither am I inclined to close the blog.  I've stepped back from Lurking because I feel that part of the reason that I set up the blog (to try and encourage online conversations to move offline) has not been entirely successful.  I plan to remain involved in local organisations and stay in touch with some of the fantastic people I've met, but I think it's vital to spend more time offline than online and to work on the other projects.

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.

Lambeth Council turn down £2.7 million Community bid to purchase Beaufoy Institute

(Photo taken from a thread on Beaufoy Institute on Urban 75 here)

Lurking about SE11 has learned that a "community" bid to purchase the Beaufoy Institute on Black Prince Road from Lambeth Council for £2.7 million has failed.  The Heart of Kennington Ltd represented the coming together of a number of local organisations, The School of Communication Arts, Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, South Bank Mosaics, Stark Investments Limited and two other potential arts based schools learned on Monday that their bid had not been successful.  Since the bidding process was largely anonymous, the winner has not yet been announced and the local community are beginning to ask questions.

At a Kennington Oval Vauxhall forum AGM meeting on 7th June, David Toothill, (Southbank Mosaics) introduced Marc Lewis who runs the School of Communication Arts and he introduced the bid to all present.  You can see various community messages of support recorded and videoed, and the Heart of Kennington Ltd were the only people who appeared before the local community to discuss their bid.  Local councillors were present at the meeting, but perhaps felt that another company's bid would be more beneficial for Kennington and Vauxhall.  Or, more likely, it was felt that somebody else's bid would put more cash on the table.  Is a much-loved community building being sacrificed for short-term financial gain for the Council, as it rapidly attempts to shed its assets?  Or, does the would-be purchaser have plans for the local common good of which nobody is aware?

The School of Communication Arts, we were informed at the meeting, are a not-for-profit social enterprise organisation funded by the advertising industry, preparing young people for a career in the creative sector.  Whilst a private enterprise, a large percentage of their students are backed by grants and scholarships.  The school is currently based in Worgan Street in the Methodist Church hall, but is Vauxhall based with roots in Graphite Square.

The Heart of Kennignton partnership were hoping to take the building at the back of the Beaufoy and build 250 student rooms, in clusters of six and make it the only dedicated art student accommodation in London, where students and artists could work together.  The accommodation was intended to fund the rest of the enterprise.  Once the main 1907 Beaufoy Institute had been brought back to Grade 2 standard, it would have been gifted to the Lady Margaret Hall Settlement.  LMHS would have guaranteed a place for the London School of Communication arts in the building so that the school (about 50 students) was ensured a lasting legacy in the area.  LMHS would then have helped choose two similar schools in areas pertaining to the arts eg. design, photography, acting, journalism to bring three creative schools under one roof.  Space was to have been ensured for other partners such as the Southbank Mosaic project and it was envisaged that the partnership would provide creative arts services for the community.

The project might never now come to fruition.  The community and all involved would probably do well to wait for further details to be announced, but at present, nobody has publicly identified the successful bidder (or even whether they exist).  I will say one thing.  If this is the way that the co-operative Council intend to work, with utter lack of consultation and reception of community views, its methods are not to be favoured.  Lambeth residents would do well to advise residents in other areas not to advocate the Co-operative Council vision.  It may just be that the Council have chosen a bid partner with whom to develop something that will benefit locals, but they have shown complete disregard for involving the local community in a frenzied last-minute sales process.

See Vauxhall Society's article on the Battle of the Beauyfoy here.

Lambeth Council have put the Beaufoy Institute up for sale - anybody want a school?

So, as was widely predicted, Lambeth Council haave instructed an estate agent, Lambert Smith Hampton, to sell off the Beaufoy Institute in Black Prince Road, SE11. Selling off assets is obviously something Lambeth are doing in an attempt to raise funds, but it's a real shame they couldn't find a use for it in conjunction with a private partner. In cash-strapped times, the Council would probably maintain that public interest would not best be served by giving the building away for free, but does stripping North Lambeth of its assets serve local residents well in the long-term?  It rather depends on whom the Beaufoy is sold to, and to what end.

So, if you want to buy a Grade II listed building for, err, an undisclosed amount, you can use it for any D1 purpose - medical/health service, creche/day nursery, art gallery, educational establishment, museum, library (ha ha!), public hall or place of worship.  In 2006, the beaufoy was estimated to need £2 million spent on it to bring it into usable condition.  Any purchaser will also need to contribute to the Council's costs and submit a tender by 8th June 2011.  It looks as though it would be possible for one buyer to purchase the Annexe Extension and another to buy the Beaufoy building itself.

I'm not sure whether there's a covenant on it that would prevent it from being bought and then requesting a change of use, but if my memory serves me correctly, it has to be used for some form of arts/educational purpose.  I wonder if there's a possibility that the extension might be sold first for housing, with the building itself languishing for want of a buyer to inject the necessary capital to turn it into a viable public building.  Time will tell.

Excitingly, it is possible to view the building through the Estate Agent.  I wonder whether they'll accept enquiries from random members of the public.  I've always wanted to look around.  Anybody want to join me? ;-)

Triangle Adventure Playground vs. Archbishop Tenison School

Cast your mind back to the Parliamentary hustings, held back in April in St Mark's Church and you might remember that the "Triangle" featured briefly in questions to the candidates.  The Triangle is an Adventure Playground that sits just outside of the SE11 border in Ashmole Street.  The site is leased to the Triangle Adventure Playground Association (who are a charitable foundation) by Lambeth Council.  The Triangle is the oldest Adventure Playground to have remained on a consistent site in London, but was founded at a similar time to Lollard Street Adventure playground.  (It's worth noting at this point that residents must keep a close eye on the Lollard site since its future is potentially tied up in the future of the former Lilian Baylis School, and all of our adventure playgrounds are very valuable community resources).

Mention the Triangle to local councillors, and you might receive well-worn looks of despair.  Essentially, Archbisop Tenison School needed space to expand their play facilities.  The school /was/ due to receive money from the Building Future Schools programme which would allow them to provide schooling for an additional 150 boys, and Lambeth Council were left in the slightly awkward position that they would essentially need to sacrifice the Community Playground in order to turn it into a school playground that could be used on an out-of-hours basis by the community.  A shared solution was being sought (as at 15/10/2009) according to this FOI request, but since mention of the site still seems contentious, it would appear that no joint solution has been found.  I've also found that wading through the documentation on the matter is confusing.  The FOI email seems to suggest that Archbishop Tenison needed the space for a car park (Lambeth Council firmly refuted this) and reports from elsewhere seemed to suggest that the site would only be closed temporarily in order to allow the school to complete some building work (which is what seemed to be at issue during the hustings).  I am going to assume, unless somebody says to the contrary, that the plan was to give the Triangle Adventure Playground to Archbishop Tension School, and it is this that the Playground committee are objecting to (particularly since many students at the school are not resident in Lambeth).

At the hustings, Kate Hoey appeared to blame Council Officers / council machinery for some of the decisions taken on the project.  More recently, the South London Press published an article (KA news blog has a copy here) which suggests that Kate Hoey has written to the Council, asking them to "save" the playground.  This is an interesting request, but is perhaps not unachievable, given the recent Lib/Tory pact to abolish the Future for Schools program.  If the Archbishop Tension School can't expand, then there's not really much reason to absorb the playground (as Kate Hoey noted) and she has called for the Council to reconsider their decision to close the Triangle.

What's important to note though, is that Kate Hoey has been campaigning for a shared solution (which does appear on the face of it to be common sense).  Ms Hoey doesn't want to see the Triangle disappear, nor does she want the school to be deprived of extra play space.  But the SLP article notes that,

"a council spokesman said the local authority would still not be renewing the lease when it expires in November."

Now surely anybody can see that that is not a good decision.  The school cannot expand due to the failure of the Building Future Schools program (which is a very bad thing), but the Triangle Adventure Playground cannot continue because the Council are refusing to renew the lease.  Are the Council attempting to de-facto hand the playground to the school, ousting the good work put in on behalf of local children in the 344th (out of 354) most deprived area of child deprivation in the UK?  Yes. Councillor Pete Robbins maintains that Lambeth Council are committed to expanding the school and that more space is needed for classrooms and play space (how they'll do this without any money is unknown).  I'm not sure whether Lambeth Council fund the Triangle at all, but it's quite clear that Lambeth Council will be cutting youth services, which might have something to do with the decision.

It seems to me that this would be a very good opportunity to start practicing all of this Co-operative Council malarky.  I'd have thought that Polly Toynbee (who will sit on the co-op's board), who has always been an advocate for the disenfranchised ought to be concerned about the removal of the playground.  Has anybody written to her?  I wouldn't personally wish to take on a Toynbee-Hoey coalition!  The Triangle are talking about organising a sit-in in November and waiting for forcible removal by bailiffs.  Surely it needn't come to that?  But if it does, perhaps we can arrange for some of the members of the venerable associations, organisations and adventure playgrounds in the area to at least organise a large enough sit-in that the bailiffs have a difficult task on their hands!  If you wish to sign the Triangle Association's petition, you can do so here, but they seem still to be using the misleading information that the site would be turned into a car-park, which from what I can discern is not quite true.

Schools in Lambeth will have to expand, but why not add secondary school places to the borough by using the already existing empty Beaufoy building?  A situation in which schools are having to compete with youth facilities for space is completely unacceptable, and I do wonder whether, perhaps led and arbitrated by Kate Hoey, the Triangle Adventure Playground Association might not be able to meet with the governors of the Archbishop Tension School to come to a mutual arrangement?

Part 2... continued here.

Equal opportunities for all in SE11 - proposed Beaufoy Academy jeopardised?

Lambeth Labour believe in equal opportunities for all.  At least, that is Cllr Pete Robbins' view on local education.  Clearly, equal opps for all in education do not extend as far as equal opps for all citizens to participate in local democracy.  Perhaps that's not such a bad thing, since it's unclear whether the co-operative council movement would result in the further privatisation of services, as the council sought to further sub-contract works in an attempt to minimise costs.  Of course, there is a chance that the co-operative council idea might offer an opportunity for genuine democratic participation by local citizens.  But, at this rate, we'll never know.  Local politics, according to Lambeth Labour, should be left to the politicians, or, better still, the businesses that consult with Lambeth's corporate policy team.

I can't think of any political party that doesn't believe in the idea of equal opportunities for all.  The question, of course, is quite how one achieves that aim.  The Conservatives have attempted this in a small number of counties by retaining grammar schools.  A grammar school education offers a way to university, and beyond, for all those who could pass the 11+ exam (and, of course, could afford to live in the catchment area).  The argument against grammar schools is that they deplete the talent pool, leaving comprehensive schools to teach everybody else.  A more recent Labour policy to promote equal opportunities for all has seen an attempt to turn certain failing schools into "academies" with specialisms.  According to Wikipedia, the academy idea was sponsored by Tony Blair, all the way back in 2000.  Academies have traditionally been publicly funded (although, with a private commercial backer), but outside of Local Education Authority control.  And, of course, they've face the same accusations of selection as grammar schools.  Apparently, they're allowed to set their own admissions policies, although "most" academies follow local authority guidelines.  The Conservatives also like academies, and indeed, at the local Princes/Oval by-election hustings, the Conservative candidate, Michael Poole-Wilson enthusiastically backed the idea of third-party run schools.  Most recently, academy schools have received the backing of the Cons/Lib-Dem coalition, with the suggestion that schools should apply for Academy status, if they think they could benefit from greater independence.

Why is this of any relevance to SE11?  Of what possible import could academies have on our little part of London?  Sometimes it's useful to be able to take a little step back.  We'll go back, for the sake of argument, to the 23rd March 2010.  I'm sure it was around that date that Cllr McGlone was suggesting that the Beaufoy site might be used to establish a new Academy for 14-19 year olds.  The Council was supposed to be "exploring with potential sponsors an Academy-based model" for the Beaufoy that might even have been named the "Beaufoy Vocational Academy".  The proposed sponsor (Kunshapsskolan) run their schools in a manner that is "state-funded, free of charge and non-selective", but at the end of the day, they're still a company, and they'd still be a sponsor (and they don't escape the Academy model).  So why would Lambeth Labour call for schools not to opt out of local authority control, at the same time as looking to build an Academy (with private sponsorship) in their own backyard?  Has there been a change of heart, or did the talks with the sponsor fall through?

Surely, what's of importance to local tax-payers, parents and residents is that the Beaufoy site be put to use.  By all means, build an academy, a comprehensive, an adult-education centre or a learning based-facility, but why not see if Kids Company (or some other charity) could use the space whilst we wait?  I'm pretty sure they'd have some great ideas for it, and it would benefit the most vulnerable children in our neighbourhood by giving them the use of a beautiful building.  The former Lilian Baylis has meanwhile use, but I often wander past the car-park area of the Beaufoy and think it could be put to use very well as a couple of basketball/netball/tennis courts (at the very least).

Whilst we wait, I've installed a ticker at the top of the blog, which counts the length of time since the Beaufoy Institute has been put to any proper use.

Clarification:  Cllr Robbins has posted a long response, over at Onionbag, claiming that Lambeth-"key partner" Academies are different from the government's proposals that schools should seek Academy status in order to gain control over their spending.  I'm unclear about the difference since I thought that all Academies were (to some degree) privately funded, whether "key partners" with their local authorities or not.  All moves to build Academies are moves towards privatisation.

Further clarification: Cllr Steve Reed has said that academies no longer need private sponsorship (although, see above, as the Beaufoy looks to be going in this direction anyway).  If that's the case, I'm not entirely sure I see the Lambeth Labour objection to schools seeking Academy status, and choosing to go it alone, without the local authority.

An exclusive: The Beaufoy School as a 780 student Academy

I heard one local mutter recently, "Sometimes information turns up in brown unmarked envelopes." Perhaps there's an anonymous email equivalent too.  I wouldn't know.  But I have received information that might be termed "concrete whispers", in written form, on the matter of the Beuafoy School. This information is exclusive, and I think it would be fair to say that it was leaked some weeks ago from sources close to the Council, but I do think local residents might want to ask some questions at the hustings this evening.

I was unable to solidify the facts on the account of the history of the Beaufoy School (and needless to say, Cllr McGlone was only able to refute the facts as I stated them, but wasn't able to provide alternative evidence).  I do think it's probably fair to posit that Lambeth Council didn't like the bypassing of the National Curriculum by the Young Foundation, or indeed their plans for a school for 250 students.  It is thought that Lambeth Council went behind the back of the Young Foundation last year by approaching the DCHF directly with their own idea, a month or so before the papers would have been signed, but again, you'll have to take my source's word on that... Lambeth Council will argue that the proposals were not sufficiently developed and never reached the government's desk. All I can say is that the deal got far enough for the DCHF to annouce the Beaufoy in their press release, only to have to recant when they realised the papers hadn't been signed...

So I can now exclusively reveal that Lambeth Council are considering alternative plans to turn the Beaufoy site into an Academy for 780 students.  (Do we think the Beaufoy site can support this, and would local residents be happy about it?)  It would not be a state-controlled school (in the manner of the much-improved and now sought-after Lilian Baylis).  The academy model tends to ensure that whilst schools are state-funded, they are run by private companies (or parents).  So, talks are in progress with a Swedish company named Kunskapsskolan (it really rolls off the tongue) to run The Beaufoy in Lambeth (as well as other schools in the UK).

I don't entirely understand the rationale behind the move.  I wondered at first whether the school plans were part of the unelaborated Labour Council plans to go co-operative.  A co-operative council is one in which citizens are lead to believe that they might "take control", in a manner which would supposedly lead to improved services.  (When I asked Cllr Steve Reed for further clarification about how the co-op council would work re. the Lilian Baylis hub (see comments on the Onionbag blog about swimming), none were forthcoming, and I do think the burden of proof is on the council to state more concretely what this form of government would take.)

But handing over a local school site to a private company (which tends to sound like a Conservative policy, and not something Labour would endorse) is not a particularly co-operative style move.  I would have thought that a co-operative move might involve discussing varying options for schools with local parents, or investigating whether there is demand for adult further education. I'm not suggesting that building an Academy would be a bad move. The jury is probably still out about academy schools (although some local politicians had strong views on the matter at the most recent hustings), but questions about how the curriculum might work, or what the school would teach are open questions. More importantly, there are questions of funding and selection. Would an Academy school receive more funding than a state-maintained counterpart? And, would an Academy School end up benefitting border-hopping parents/students, as opposed to Lambeth pupils?

One might wonder why the Kunskapsskolan might not consider using the former Lilian Baylis (it might be a better fit for all of those students), but apparently the Council have warned them off that site.  And the former Lilian Baylis is rumoured to be the site of a a permanent lease with the Sports Action Zone (SAZ).  I sincerely hope that the "community hub" (whoever they are) will be consulted on the matter because otherwise it doesn't really sound like a community venture, does it?  And I've heard rumours from a different set of locals that SAZ can be quite difficult to hire space from, even for community ventures.  It appears that pressure has to be applied from the top to get them to concede, and I'd be rather unhappy to think that the Council were preparing to enter into a permanent agreement with one partner who are already being difficult about co-operating with local groups.

Further news as I receive it...

Lambeth Council pull out of Beaufoy Institute deal, losing £11.4 million central government money

I've been sitting on this story for months now, but have finally got the go ahead from my source to release it. I'm afraid the story rather long and complicated, so I'm going to simplify what I've been sent as much as possible. See the sections in bold for particularly bad behaviour on the part of Lambeth Council.

Background:

Since 2000, the Beaufoy Institute building on Black Prince Road has been empty, despite a succession of proposals for use that have come to nothing.

Timeline:
2005 - Lambeth Council invited local groups to submit proposals for the Beaufoy Institute. Lady Margaret Hall Settlement (LMHS) and Riverside Community Development Trust (RCDT) put forward a proposal for an artisan-based vocational school to train local young people, which was rejected by the Council.

2006 - LMHS made contact with the Young Foundation who were developing the concept of studio schools across the UK and together put forward the idea of such a school at the Beaufoy Institute. The Settlement also made contact with the Prince of Wales’s private office and initial discussions were held about the concept.

2007 - LMHS then made contact with the De Morgan foundation and added the possible connection of an Arts and Crafts Museum to the Artisan School. De Morgan were introduced to Lambeth Council Regeneration Department and proceeded to negotiate a possible occupation of the Beaufoy with them. The Council Regeneration department refused to engage with the concept of the school and ideas based on an arts community.

Late 2008 - Lord Adonis, the Minister responsible for academies, approached Prince Charles seeking Royal sponsorship for an Academy. The Prince expressed interest in the Studio Schools concept and in the Beaufoy Artisan School. In December a meeting was held on site between the Prince’s Charities, The Young Foundation, LMHS, RCDT and De Morgan and it was agreed to work together to take the concept forward. It was also agreed to seek the participation of Lambeth Council. A steering committee was formed.

2009 - The Young Foundation had for some time been in negotiation with Department for Children School and Families about a national programme for studio schools, with 7 other local authorities already on board and were preparing their submission to the government. It was necessary therefore to move quickly to fit the Artisan School within the time frame. Lambeth produced a first draft which met no one’s objectives and after long discussions a new draft was agreed and submitted. Negotiations on the final draft submission were left largely between the Young Foundation and Lambeth Council. The steering committee continued to meet and two sticking points were identified: the methodology of work placement and the timetable. The Steering Committee rejected the Council’s proposed timetable.

Lambeth Council then proposed that the Studio School became a specialist in hospitality skills which the community groups found not to be an acceptable alternative to artisanship. Work continued between the Young Foundation and Lambeth Council and the difficulties were apparently cleared. The Young Foundation shared their views and experience of these negotiations with LMHS, but Lambeth Council continued to refuse to engage. (The community groups only received Lambeth’s first draft submission 10 weeks after it went to government and only after repeated demands from Sir Hayden Philips, the Steering Committee chair.) It was at this time it became clear that De Morgan had no realistic strategy for raising the money to convert the old building. De Morgan left the Steering group and the views of the government were sought on whether they would agree to the incorporation of the Institute buildings into the school instead of a new building on the site. This was accepted and a new scheme drawn up.

Lambeth Council and the Young Foundation (now called the Studio Schools Trust) continued to work on the final submission. In July 2009 the Prince’s Charities chaired the last steering group in anticipation of the final submission going to government almost immediately, to keep the Artisan School within the programme going forward for ministerial approval. At that last meeting John Wotherspoon (representing Lambeth Council), at the insistence of Sir Hayden Philips (Steering Committee Chair) agreed to send LMHS a copy of the Council proposals. In September 2009 LMHS were approached by the Young Foundation/Studio School Trust to help then get responses to key questions from Lambeth Council. However LMHS received no response and to date have still not received the promised copy of the Council’s proposals. LMHS had previously met with Cllr McGlone and received assurances that everything was going ahead. Shortly afterwards LMHS and Cllr McGlone met with Kate Hoey MP to express concern at the Council’s sudden failure to engage with the proposal.

LMHS heard from a private source that Lambeth Council had sought a meeting with the Department for Children, Family and Schools to propose that the monies be reallocated for a new Lambeth proposal which they were preparing. This was refused and Lambeth then informed the Ministry they were withdrawing from the Studio Schools’ Project which the Minister had been due to sign in two days time. At this point Lambeth Council resumed contact with the Young Foundation to advise them of their decision. LMHS / RCDT were not informed and apparently nor was Cllr McGlone. At this point LMHS / RCDT attempted to meet the leader of the Council, the Chair of Education and the Chief Executive to seek an explanation for the withdrawal, and to see if a way ahead could be found. Local councillors were asked to intervene. Only Cllr Stephen Morgan replied.

January 2010 - LMHS / RCDT met with the Young Foundation (Studio Schools Trust) to verify the timeline and reasons for Lambeth Council withdrawal from the Artisan School. It was agreed that the local friends of the Beaufoy group would now take the lead in pursuing a campaign to get an Artisan School on the site. The Studio Schools Trust agreed to continue working with this group.

February 2010 - the local groups met again with the Studio Schools Trust who confirmed that Lambeth Council had lost the £11.4 million from government. There continues to be no direct contact with Lambeth Council.

---

Issues regarding LBC’s claims as to why the Studio Schools proposal was unsuccessful:

* Lambeth Council claim the loss of the Museum in the project meant that the Prince’s Charities withdrew. This is not true. The Prince’s Charities agreed to host the steering committee until Lambeth Council assured us the process was almost complete.

* Lambeth Council claim that the Department for Children, Families and Schools did not agree to proceed with a solvent tenant for the old building. In fact DCFS agreed to house part of the school in the old building and Lambeth architects drew such as scheme.

* Lambeth Council claim that the DCFS did not accept the basic tenets of the Studio Schools Trust and Lambeth could not then proceed. In fact two days after Lambeth’s withdrawal, the Minister approved the other seven schools and supported the concept in a key note speech. (The DCFS website initially included Lambeth in the announcement.)

* Lambeth say the Studio Schools Trust withdrew – this is also not correct. Right up to a few days before ministerial approval the Trust was still trying to get answers from Lambeth Council. The Department response was to not answer emails, telephone calls or letters.

* Lambeth Council say they had strong educational/philosophical differences with the Studio School model, in particular citing differences on curriculum and work placement. The Studio Schools proposals were "not suitable for Lambeth Young people". At no point did the department explain to the steering committee what made the work placement impossible for Lambeth Youth but clearly acceptable to those of seven other Councils. Beyond a verbal request from John Wotherspoon on timetabling no substantive differences were ever expressed or presented.

Deep Blue Subs, and Ways into Work - supporting people seeking work

Apparently, a new sandwich shop - Deep Blue Subs - is opening in Vauxhall.  My new SE11_jobs Twitter feed that sources jobs around SE11 (except when it gets confused by somebody mentioning unrelated "Ovals" informed me that they are hiring.  I've not noticed this shop, but my spies tell me it's somewhere near Vauxhall Station.  (What else have I missed recently?)

On that note, if you're unemployed (or maybe just under-employed), Lambeth Council are running a group for people looking to get back to work.  The group is open to all (not just young people) and will be taking place for 10 weeks, from 22nd Feb.  Go along on Mondays from 10:30am - 12:00.  What's quite unusual is that it's meeting at Alford House Youth Club (kind of tucked away opposite Kennington Tesco), which is impressive because I do occasionally think, what with the still empty Beaufoy and the under-utilised (and badly maintained) former Lilian Baylis, that Lambeth Council sometimes brushes North Lambeth under the carpet.  In this instance of employment and jobs, it does appear not, so let's try to use the services whilst they're on offer! 

Former Lilian Baylis costing tax payer £380,000 per year. Election Looming. Answers please.

So, I may not be the South London press and I might not get paid, and I haven't been to Journalist School (see Jason Cobb's recent comment battle on the SLP), but this blog has a fair old readership now, so I think it's fair to point out, once again, that the former Lilian Baylis site is costing Lambeth taxpayers £380,000 per year to maintain, there's been no progress in terms of developing it or selling it to a community organisation or private buyer, and there's an election coming up.

Back on October 22nd 2009, I sent a query about the former Lilian Baylis site to Steve Reed, asking, "Has the council issued statement on status of former Lilian Baylis bid by ANC? Rumour says the bid is off, but pls confirm."  I received a Direct Message from Steve Reed, advising that the council were, "Still negotiating a consortium to run the old school site, details public soon, intending it shd represent the whole community not just part".

Fair enough.  I can wait, I thought.  After all, the thing only kicked off in 2005, so we wouldn't want to rush matters.  (For a comprehensive post, and history, see my catchup on the definitive history of the former Lilian Baylis.)

Eventually, on the 14th December 2009, Lambeth council issued a decision to decommission the project from having as its focus the All Nations Church (ANC).  Reasons as to why they did this vary slightly, depending on whom you ask.  There was some local opposition to the ANC (a faith group) having the "lead partner" stake in buying a Council building that is currently essentially a community resource.  However, there are also rumours that the ANC were, by last year, only able to buy the building for a considerably smaller amount than they had originally offered (bear in mind that the Council would have given them a favourable rate, compared to the land's market value).  The Council state in a report dated 14th December, (this one is quite an interesting document which I'll dissect below), "Ultimately, the terms of the offers by ANC presented an unacceptable risk of challenge to the council and other elements of the proposed leasehold terms were also unacceptable in principle." and also, "The offer proposed by ANC entailed a substantial discount below market value, which the council could not justify through demonstartion of public benefit."

Remember back in February 2009 (see old council .pdf here) that the "hub" group were to comprise the ANC, the Sport's Action Zone (SAZ) and Ethelred Nursery.  It appears now that the ANC have been "dropped" from official plans (although, apparently, "The decision not to progress negotiations with ANC does not prejudice or preclude ANC’s involvement in alternative delivery arrangements.").  However, the new December 14th plan is to try and move forward with both Sports Action Zone (Kate Hoey is the patron of this organisation) and the Ethelred Nursery.  It is highly unlikely that either of these organisations have any money (SAZ isn't even a legal entity), so...

What might Lambeth Council do?

Let's see what facts are laid out in the December 14th plan:

1. "Pursuit of a maximised social and community outcomes approach is likely to be an overall capital cost to the council council, i.e., the cost of development would be greater than any capital receipt."

Translation: It costs money to pay for community facilities, when we wouldn't make money from those facilities.  And in any case, we're not terribly interested in providing Leisure facilities.  See Jason Cobb's post on the privatisation of Lambeth leisure facilities.

2. "The overall capital gain to the council would be maximised if the site were disposed on the open market."

Translation: Actually, we'd make more money (and we don't have much of this right now), if we were to sell the development.

[I can see that this one is going to be a bit troublesome, come the election, since the Lib Dems wanted to sell the building off, before they changed their minds, a few years ago...  So, you can see the accusations flying, Labour: "you wanted to sell", Lib Dem: "you said you'd develop, Lab: "you changed your mind", Lib Dem: "we didn't exactly... but in any case, you want to sell now", blah, blah, blah, let's pre-empt that boring old battle...]

3. "Potentially, the overall capital gain might be greater if other sites in the area were included in the redevelopment process allowing for the reconfiguration and consolidation of community outcomes on particular sites and realisation of the full development value of other sites."

Translation: We could make even more money, if we were to sell off some other bits of land. (This might allude to the Beaufoy, Lollard St playground and Kerrin point (or all of them). Would be useful to know the proposals because it's a far reaching statement.

4. "Note that the listed building status conferred on the site restricts the scope for development and agree for officers to investigate how this might be addressed in order to enable suitable development options." and "The listing of buildings of this period is not without controversy and presents a number of problems and constraints in this instance."

Translation: Let's try to get the building delisted, because then we can sell it off for more money, and don't have to worry about English Heritage. Interestingly, even the car park is listed (a result of some kind of ancient Council vendetta). We need to get all of this stuff delisted ASAP, so that we can get this building off our hands.

5. "To date the council have resisted pursuing the possible delisting of the site on the basis that there is little prospect of the Secretary of State agreeing. The council failed to stop the listing originally and no new evidence has been forthcoming to challenge the English Heritage assessment of the building’s special interest."

Translation: We're a bit doomed, really! 

6. "Increasing this estimate by construction inflation and factoring in the likely further deterioration in the condition of the property, a capital investment of as much as £10m may be required to bring the buildings back into an acceptable condition."

Translation: We're even more doomed. These buildings cost a fortune to repair, we have no money, and nobody will pay enough for them, considering that they're listed, and we can't figure out how to delist them, and the Secretary of State will never do it.  Wah!

7. "The site and buildings are insured as part of the council’s building insurance contract which includes a regular programme of health and safety inspection. It is possible that future inspections will identify works which would need to completed in order to ensure continuity of use and as a consequence may affect the Council’s ability to maintain the continued insurance of the property."

Translation: If the building fails a health and safety inspection, we don't have enough money to fix it, and nobody will be able to use it at all. We need to sell it off really really quickly.

8. "Since 2005 SAZ have been successful in attracting considerable external investment (Nike, Barclays Spaces for Sports, Football Foundation) and voluntary investment which has helped to transform the complex into a successful community facility. SAZ is negotiating currently to bring in up to £4m of capital funding for a community basketball initiative, with an ambition to provide a basketball facility and venue of international standard."

Translation: Even though the building might fail a health and safety inspection, we really like this SAZ organisation, and they're good for the area. Also, they're backed by Kate Hoey, so it would be politically embarrassing to try and dispose of them.

9. "Over the past month more detailed work has taken place across Council departments to specify the outcomes sought from the site, in particular with Cultural Services with view to a significant sports/leisure focus of activity on the site and with CYPS around education, young persons and play facilities, including provision for a new ENCC."

Translation: We installed a 12 metre (yes, that is right) swimming pool. What else do you want?

---

To be fair, at the 14th December meeting, Cllr Ashley Lumsden (Opposition leader), ask whether the Council outcomes stated in the December 14th 2009 report were the same ones as desired by the residents. Well, you may indeed ask! I certainly would.

Make of that what you will, but I doubt any movement (in terms of either sale or significant development) will be made in, ooh, let's say, the next 12 months (even with a change in administration). I'll write another post next year, around February 2011, keeping you up to date.

The question is, Cllr Reed, who is the consortium you said would be running the old school site?  The clock is ticking, and the election looms....

[Believe it or not, I had not read Peter Walker's Guardian article here, in which he seems utterly unaware that the current administration has suggested selling the site (and possibly other sites) to maximise capital, but it's a prime example of why hyperlocal bloggers do possess a much broader picture than some of the national press.]