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 Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) Exhibition - Part 2 of 5 - Lambeth Council

This is Part 2 of a series of posts detailing the photos taken of all display boards at the Vauxhall Nine Elms and Battersea (VNEB) consultation held on 2nd and 3rd October 2010.  This post details the plans displayed by Lambeth Council.  The opportunity area that falls within the geographical region of Lambeth is much smaller than the area that falls within Wandsworth.


You'll see from this map (the purple line indicates the Lambeth/Wandsworth boundary) that all of the developments at Vauxhall fall within Lambeth.  The yellow line indicates the Opportunity Area boundary, so you'll see that the Lambeth VNEB Opportunity area reaches all of the way up to Lambeth Road and includes the entirety of the Albert Embankment.  The Lambeth area also includes the Nine Elms Sainsburys, but does not not include the New Covent Garden flower market:

(Image taken and bodged   from  Streetmap)  

I'm afraid that the following Lambeth Planning images don't include anything that we don't already know about, but they're here for posterity.  I apologise for the slightly odd reflective effect, but somebody from Lambeth is obviously using up the lamination budget:

First up, St George's Tower / Vauxhall Tower.  Vauxhall will be stuck with the ugliest, tallest tower in London at 50 storeys/180 metres (even taller than Strata / The Ladyshave).  Never mind.  As somebody pointed out, the stamp duty paid by residents will fund plenty of Section 106 developments and projects for local people.  The tower represents regeneration, which is generally a good idea in Vauxhall.  Unfortunately, their swimming pool won't be open for public use:

Next up, we have the proposed Vauxhall Island site.  For more on the consultation/plans on that, see over here.  It's 41 storeys/140 metres high, and I can't see these iconic towers being turned down by Lambeth.  I'm not sure when the decision on this is due. The towers have a much more attractive shape than the Vauxhall Tower above and the Vauxhall Island site is just a barren wasteland of advertising hoardings at present.  The exciting thing about the Vauxhall Island site is improvements made to the surrounding area in terms of shops, restaurants and pedestrian access:

Vauxhall Sky Gardens was approved when nobody was looking at the beginning of 2010.  It's only 36 storeys, so I'm sure nobody will notice it:

81 Black Prince Road would fit in quite nicely if it were nearer to the Vauxhall cluster of towers.  It's going to look rather odd rising up to 77 metres (23 storeys) at the end of Black Prince Road, which is mostly low rise housing.  I'm not sure whether I photographed the consultation documents (I've wised up over time), but the view from Kennington Cross is horrific.  I'm not keen on the design at all, but I suppose it's a matter of taste:

Nobody really liked the Bondway Tower, except the Lambeth Council Officers.  Here are some of the reasons why local residents didn't want the Bondway.  Despite the Council's refusal, the developer appealed, and a huge public enquiry was held.  I was going to write a series on the Bondway appeal, but I didn't get any further than a post summarising the opening arguments.  I might continue, if anybody expresses interest, but some of this material is mightily dull to plough through.  We should hear a decision from the Planning Inspectorate by December 2010, or January 2011, and I'm guessing that this one might end up being heard by the Secretary of State:

Here's the one I was missing earlier.   It's 20 Albert Embankment and it already has planning permission. I think it might look rather strange, being so tall, neighbouring the other buildings.   At least part of it will be a hotel.  Another hotel:

I commend the enhanced links between Vauxhall and the river, and improvements to Spring Gardens.  I'm hoping that it will mean the abolition of the gyratory and improved cyclist and pedestrian accessibility.  Here's the overall concept plan:

I am amused that the Development Management Development Plan Document (it can't really be called that!), which will be used to assess planning applications, will emerge in early 2011.  I can't imagine that there will be many planning applications for buildings in the Vauxhall part of VNEB left to submit by that time!  I look forward to the site allocations document that will advise where new schools, mosques and health centres might be placed.  That document will also emerge in early 2011:

Finally, here's a quick overview of the "new heart for Vauxhall" that the Council has planned:

So, what's missing...?  We don't yet know what's planned for the Sainsburys site (you'll have to wait for the disappointing 4th part of the series for that, but there's no significant information in the public domain yet). I'm not sure whether there are towers planned for the Market Gardens residential section (it's technically in Wandsworth), but it looked like it from the 3D model, and those will have some impact on Vauxhall.  I imagine that the Texaco garage plans (38 - 46 Albert Embankment) will rear their head again (more info on the old application here).  We're waiting for revised Fire Station at 8 Albert Embankment to be submitted.  1 - 9 Bondway (the new Travelodge) wasn't on display, but it's either considered too small or too new.  There probably wasn't time to laminate it before the ink had dried!  Also, the "new heart for Vauxhall" board above seems to indicate that development will take place on Vauxhall Walk, and the "South East Regeneration Arc".  I'm not sure we've seen submissions for either of these yet, so I imagine that there must be more developers still to consult in Lambeth.

VNEB exhibition Part 1 of 5 - Ballymore can be found here, if you find planning matters thrilling and exciting :-)

Kylun Vauxhall Island Site - Planning Application Submitted

I received the letter below from Kylun Ltd, advising that planning permission has been sought for the Vauxhall Island site from Lambeth Council.  The development, if approved, would comprise two buildings, one of 31 storeys and one of 41 storeys.  If you're interested in my much lengthier comments, see the post I wrote back in May .  There's also a Property Week article (which may or may not be firewalled for you) available here.

According to Kylun's stats, 65% of local residents who attended the consultation (we don't know the number, since they don't say what number filled in feedback forms) broadly approved of the development.  If we assume that 100 people filled in feedback forms (since we know that over 150 people attended), there are only about 65 local residents in favour, with a significant proportion against.  However, residents cannot say they've not been consulted on the matter, so the decision now lies with the Council.  The reference number for the development is 10/02060/FUL, try clicking here, as it proved very tricky to find (thanks, anonymous).  The plot is described as bounded by Parry Street and Bondway and falls into Oval Ward.  Residents have until 5/8/2010 to comment on the application, and should you wish to do so, use the link above and click the "submit comments" button.
As far as I can see, there's still no committment from the letter re. figures provided on affordable housing, but I'll take a look at the detailed application later and report back.  I'd have thought that this is something our local councillors would be interested in too.

On a more positive note, I welcome the emphasis on the streetscape (which can hardly be made worse), improvement to the underground station entrance, new pedestrian and cycle crossings, new shops and restaurants and a cinema (which one reader fears won't be commercially viable, so we'll have to see).  I imagine monetary contributions to both Vauxhall Park and Vauxhall Spring Gardens would be very welcome and I'd really like a little more information about the proposed improvements of the railway arches.

Vauxhall Island Site - KOV Meeting Part 2 (and a meander on to Lambeth Council Housing)

I blogged about Chief Superintendent Ephgrave's appearance at the Kennington Oval and Vauxhall forum on the 9th of June, last week.  But the other segment of the meeting mostly comprised another presentation and chance for questions and answers from the developers of the Vauxhall Island site.  This is the second time the representatives from Kylun Ltd have consulted the community in a public forum, and, better still, encouraged a free-for-all Q&A session.  I'm not going to pretend I suddenly welcome tall buildings, but as their architect commented, "we've always seen this as a location for tall buildings" and the design is considerably more discreet than some of the others presented to the public.

Additional info on. Vauxhall Island Site plans:

The architect opened the discussion by noting that between the buildings, they hope to place an enclosed site and that the commercial spaces would act as provision for local  people and not just residents.   The developers have been meeting with representatives from local parks and other groups and have identified the arches under Vauxhall bridge as opportunities for investment.  Kylun Ltd have also been asked by TFL to look at the possibility of an under the road crossing.  It wasn't entirely clear, but the matter of some additional pedestrian crossings is also under consideration.  The developers say they are happy to fund these.  TFL, however, have to confirm the exact location of any crossings, and are naturally worried about slowing down the traffic (what a good idea!!).  TFL are looking at a range of options concerning the future (or non-future) of the Vauxhall gyratory.

If the building is granted planning permission, one of the ground floor units in the Vauxhall Island site towers (I believe the left hand tower, as you look at the diagram) will be an NHS dentist, and the other part of the floor will be a 70-100 seater digital cinema.  Considering that a swimming pool was unrealistic and out of the question, I'd have said that these are great options.  We don't have a cinema locally so this should make a great addition to Vauxhall.  Above that, there will be three floors of offices (see here for the earlier detailed account, but these could well be work-space type units.  There are questions as to whether these could be subsidised for start-up businesses.  The right hand tower contains a 180 bed hotel and there will be 291 private apartments (spread across both towers, I'm guessing), with a bar on the right hand tower at the13th floor.  There will be provision for 740(ish) bike parking spaces.

SE11_lurker's brief digression on public housing:

[And the affordable housing question?  That's a rather thorny issue, of course.  Lambeth Council have traditionally built huge amounts of public housing whenever they've had the chance, in the 1920s and 1930s, as well as after the war.  It's what keeps people voting Labour, after all.  I tend to be in favour, even though I'd never qualify to live in it, because I believe that the best communities are those where wealth is evenly spread.  I'm not a fan of the free market, left to its own devices, but I make my living from it, and so do many.  Consequently, I like the idea that private housing should fund public and affordable housing.  It seems fair according to a somewhat old-fashioned notion of justice.  But Lambeth has recently seen considerable gentrification in areas like Kennington and Clapham, which of course means that people start to raise the previously unheard of question about whether "we" want that housing, and as usual, the "we" who are asking should probably look around very carefully and ask "who is included?".  Kate Hoey made a very insightful remark at one of the hustings when she commented that single men are very rarely offered public housing.

As though on cue, the Streatham Guardian this week has published figures which suggest that 20,000 people are on the "mainstream housing waiting list", compared with 17,000 last year.  It does rather make one wonder quite where people are living in the meantime.  Does everybody on the list need to be on the list?  How on earth is the housing allocated?  Lambeth claim that their success in housing people just causes more people to apply!  But it should be noted that only eight councils nationally managed to build enough homes according to national requirements.   I doubt that central London, in the middle of a recession, is ever really going to manage to squeeze in all of those extra homes.  And "squeeze" is indeed the notion, because the buildings will have to grow taller to fit in the people.  Lambeth is only seven miles long, after all!  Probably the place to put the most pressure is on the empties.  I keep thinking that the Council ought to come up with a voluntary taskforce, capable of building, plumbing and wiring, who could fix up the houses for those in most desperate need (surely that would be a good co-operative citizen thing to do).  I'd give a Saturday to go and paint a rundown flat, and I can't be the only one.]

Kylun's statement on affordable housing:

It seems that 43% of the public housing would need to be family housing, that is 3 or 4 bed apartments.  Unfortunately, the "final proportion of affordable housing has still be agreed under Section 106".

Q&A


Q.  What is the inspiration behind the design?
A.  The towers are simple and elegant shapes.  They're two sisters, so they spiral up.  The architect takes a different view to the designers of the Shard concerning design.

Q.  What is the timetable?
A.  The designs should be submitted to the Council's planning department within the next fortnight (that's the next week now, since I'm late writing this up).  They anticipate a decision before the end of the year, and will commence the search for a development partner.  If all goes to plan, work should begin on the site in 2015.

Q.  How many people will the building house? (and a second question about cycle safety which was indistinct)
A.  At a guess, the building will house about 600 people.  TFL can answer questions relating to cycle safety.  Apparently, they're coming up with a cycling vision, and running a cycle lane around the back was not seen as acceptable.  [I'm not at all clear on this question, and couldn't work out what "around the back" meant.  Would appreciate clarification from anybody that was there.]

Q.  What about piers, and river transport?
A.  We've struggled with other buildings (not this one, since the Vauxhall Island site is not considered a riverside venture), to get piers into other developments, due to the financial viability of river transport, perhaps due to the fact that it's not subsidised.  We're not in a position to make it happen on site.

[If you're really interested in piers, you might like to read about the work that Caroline Pidgeon did to try and get some on the Albert Embankment.  I wrote about it on my post "whatever happened to Vauxhall pier?"]

Q.  Are you able to favour independent local businesses, rather than give the commercial sites to chains?
A.  We are providing a range of different sized units to try to encourage variety, but it's not clear how we could send potential tenants away if they were over a certain size.

Vauxhall Island Site consultation debrief (the short, ahem, version)

First off, I think it's fair to say that the representatives of Kylun Ltd did a good job on the consultation, held today, about the Vauxhall Island Site.  You'll often hear me moan about lack of consultation or poor consultation, but if other developers were to imitate their method (provide lots of spokespeople, hand out comment forms, ask for suggestions and initiate conversations), there'd be considerably less cause for complaint.  I still feel that more could be done by Lambeth Council in terms of master planning, but don't we all?  The consultation wasn't all perfect and plain sailing of course (it rarely is), but I'll come to that...  Holding the exhibition at Vauxhall City Farm seemed to work well, and when I attended during the afternoon, the room was absolutely packed, demonstrating plenty of local interest in the proposed development.  Also, the people who attended appeared to be from diverse sectors of the community, which indicates good dissemination of information (it might just have been a sunny day, of course). Additionally  (a huge plus point), Kylun ensured that the architect was on site to be questioned, and there were more than enough other staff to answer questions too.

I think that most residents are agreed that Vauxhall would benefit from investment.  Most residents would likely agree that there is space in Vauxhall for new residential/commercial/industrial development.  I want to make it really clear to my detractors that I'm not against development and investment, I just think that development does not always mean very tall towers.  I believe that many local residents offer most resistance on the matters of housing type, style and building height.  I spoke to one resident, present in the area for 40 years, who felt that existing Council tenants were being squeezed out of the area, since much of the new residential provision was "affordable" housing, and not Council housing.  Another attendee just disliked tall buildings, noting that existing residents in and around Vauxhall were being encroached upon (eg. loss of light), or having their space diminished (eg. heavier wear and tear on Vauxhall Park, and no supply of additional green space).

But if we're pragmatic (and I rather think we have little choice), we must acknowledge that there is no Lambeth Council masterplan and we must make the best of a bad job.  Lambeth Council simply assess each building on its merit, without weighing up any other developments in the pipeline.  There is no real town planning, just advisory documents.  Even our MP, Kate Hoey seems powerless to do anything, based on her recent comment, "Whilst I don't like tower blocks there is unfortunately a tendency for these to be supported".   Erm, isn't the MP meant to be able to resist their support, based on correspondence from residents?  If Vauxhall centre isn't to become entirely market-driven and haphazard, we either need pressure put on Boris or pressure put on Cllr Steve Reed to form a plan for Vauxhall.  Surely that's why our MP exists?  Anyhow, since she doesn't appear to have weighed in, it falls to us as residents to argue for as much sensible building (fair room sizes, shorter buildings) and investment (parks, transport, facilities) as possible.  It's in Lambeth Council's interests to keep granting permission, and about the only people that might feasibly be able to insist on a sensible volume of development are TFL.

I've taken photos of all of the display boards (for people who couldn't attend) and for the historical record.  (You'd be surprised how many hits I'm still getting for the 8 Albert Embankment Exhibition page). Kylun have now provided me with the original Vauxhall Island Site pdf, so feel free to download that instead of looking at my bad photos!

1.  Regenerating Vauxhall Cross
Kylun Ltd are backed by oil money which (according to a company spokeswoman) does not mean that they have infinite resources, but presumably does mean that they're free to proceed in the knowledge that the money isn't going to disappear!  It's just as well, since they're setting themselves a bold task of "creating a new heart for Vauxhall".  Kylun's architect argued that this building is in the centre of all of the proposed new development for Vauxhall.  You might think that, as such, it would be the tallest building of them all, but that's where some post-recession, post-Livingstone pragmatism comes in.  (If you're interested, the tallest Vauxhall building (so far) prize goes to the St George Wharf Tower, at 181 metres). The original Vauxhall Island Site proposals (never validated by the council) had the building at 180 metres.  Vauxhall Sky Gardens, which has been permitted by Lambeth, is 120 metres tall.   The GLA's planning policy states that a building of 150 metres on such a site would lead to minimal impact on world heritage (aka the Palace of Westminster).  The Bondway proposal was 150 metres tall, but was refused (likely on other grounds).  In developer terms, that means that there's between 120 metres and 150 metres with which to gamble.  As such, the Vauxhall Island Site proposal is playing it safe with a cool 140 metre proposal.  They have consulted with the Mayor's office.  So much for Boris disliking tall buildings.  I suppose he'd argue that he managed to shave 40 metres off the top, but that's not really something to boast about.  If you want a comparison to know how the finished product would look, the Strata Tower in Elephant and Castle (including wind turbines) weighs in at 147 metres tall.  I like the way that the second tower (which I haven't mentioned as it's a bit smaller) is hidden, in the picture, behind the first.

2.  A background to the site.
I think we'd all agree that the site has lain empty and derelict, and that the current advertising hoardings are unsightly.  Quite why anybody would choose to live in the middle of the interchange is beyond me, but perhaps by the time the building is finished, the Vauxhall gyratory will have been removed in line with TFL's new vision for the future (rather embarrassing when Vauxhall's gyratory is barely 5 years old).  Were that to happen, and considering the landscaping that Kylun have in mind (see below) it might potentially be a much more pleasant place to live.  Certainly, I can't see most people objecting to further retail development in the area, since the current shops (on Kennington Lane, Albert Embankment and South Lambeth Road) simply don't create a particularly effective centre.

3.  The proposal

My favourite line on the above board has to be the one in which they effectively say that their 41 storeys is "elegant" compared with the 50 storeys of St George Wharf :-).  It's developer speak for "they were allowed to build even higher, so let's be reasonable because our building is a whole 9 storeys shorter" :-)   I like the idea of a glass canopy, linking the two buildings, as I think that's quite a positive way to protect us from the elements when passing through Vauxhall towards public transport.  More importantly, they are to be "open, public space", something that many developers don't seem to value.  That's good news, at least.  I also highly applaud the "improved pedestrian routes" to other parts of Vauxhall and Nine Elms, but it's difficult to know how this might be achieved, bearing in mind the gyratory (subways or bridges, perhaps).

One criticism here is that at today's consultation, the public were asked to comment on paper about the "affordable" housing section of the scheme.  Unfortunately (you can see from Board 3), it wasn't clear how much of the scheme would actually be affordable housing, thus making it rather difficult to submit comments.  When I pointed to the missing data, I was told that they wanted to hear how important the public felt affordable housing to be.  I asked if they'd re-consult once they'd decided on percentages, but I got the impression that they will not.  It all depends what people have written on the comment forms (it seems).  Although, one fellow Twitterer was given a "30% affordable, but not in writing" response, which I didn't get.  I suppose that's a fair gamble, given economic hard times.  The same perceptive chap has also pointed out that the promised "sky bar" doesn't quite make the sky, on account of being at the 10th floor level.  Nevermind.  Note also the refusal of Lambeth Council parking permits to new residents and the complete absence of parking for any other than disabled drivers (this may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view).

4.  Improvements to the ground level environment

Let's face it, anything that is done on this stretch to amend ground level environment has to be an improvement on what's present at the moment.  It's not exactly a site upon which local people go and have picnics!  There's  another mention of the canopy, but no actual details (other than that) about what sort of ground level improvements would be made.  Kylun have tried to take into account residents concerns re. wind tunnel effects by streamlining the towers, but I've no idea whether that really will prevent wind tunnels.

5.  A vibrant mix of uses

Quite oddly, the poster says that "employment-generating space is a key aspect of Kylun's proposals", and yet retail/office space is certainly nowhere near a dominant part of the scheme.  I think that's a good thing, as office space hardly seems lacking at Vauxhall, but I don't understand why they've said it's "key".  I tend to think that additional shops will lead people to spend longer in Vauxhall area, so expanding retail space ought to benefit existing local restaurants and businesses.

In terms of recreation and local space, Kylun are looking to work with Spring Gardens, soon to be re-named Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens which suggests that they're not doing anything with Vauxhall Park, but then they mention the possibility of contributions to improve Vauxhall Park nearer to the bottom of the poster.  In my view, Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens would benefit from investment.  There are also some mystery community benefits on the way, but these are not stated, although there are a few ideas eg. extra funding for Vauxhall City Farm, funding for public art both inside/outside the building, and new links to cycle routes in the area.  Anything that could be done on the Vauxhall interchange to make life easier for cyclists would be close to miraculous!  Maybe a cycle route across the island site, allowing cyclists to bypass the gyratory would be worth focusing on.

6.  Delivering jobs and employment

I'm rather sceptical of the ability of new buildings to "deliver jobs".  New buildings tend to deliver empty office space, but actually, this proposal has only a small amount of commercial space, so that's not really a concern. The major job provider, I imagine, will be the hotel in one of the blocks.  Other than the budget Comfort Inn, there aren't any others, so it makes sense to be the first off the ground.

On this drawing, I want to look more carefully at the building make-up (click the photo to enlarge, and then zoom in).  One of the Kylun members of staff stated as follows:  In the building on the left (the shorter), the area marked in orange will be a children's ball park, and an unknown space (awaiting community input).  The blue marking near the bottom will be offices (over three floors).  The green marking is "some residential mixture" which I initially assumed would be the affordable housing, but the member of staff wouldn't commit.  At the top of the same building, the purple marking represents the top four floors, which will be private residential housing.  The penthouse has been replaced with a kind of open, shared garden space for residents.     

In the tower on the right, the entire upper section of the building (marked in pink) will be private residential housing.  Just under that on the 14th floor is the skybar (open to the public).  Below that (marked in purple) is the hotel.  The larger purple ground floor space represents the hotel bar/entrance, and on the first floor, there is the hotel restaurant.  The larger pink ground floor space represents retail space, and the larger pink first floor space will be an ordinary restaurant.

One particularly impressive point to note is that Kylun are setting up a Community Liaison Forum, once planning permission has been secured, a community news letter and a 24 hour phone number so that contractors can be contacted.  These are great ideas which positively predispose me to recommend this building over others eg. Bondway.  I think that some of the residents awaiting the completion of Strata (aka The Ladyshave, at Elephant and Castle) might have wished for a community news letter or even a website, letting them know how the building was progressing.

7.  Community amenities and a blank canvass
This one was quite fun.  The community were allowed to suggest lots of ideas for the empty space on the third floor.  I tried to suggest that the space (or some other space in the building) be used to house a public residential swimming pool, but my suggestion did not go down too well.  Apparently, there's not room in the development, and the very large underground purple space on the diagram is going to be used for servicing the hotel, and not a pool.  I don't know if you can read the suggestions on the post-its, but they were listed; cinema, public library, performance space, cafe, gym, discussion area for local groups, climbing wall, art exhibition, community centre, job centre, swimming pool (x 3), squash courts, artist studios, performance space.  My personal favourite (other than swimming pool) is job centre.  Can you imagine?  Lots of nice posh flats, and a huge job centre, visited by the great unwashed.  Yeah right!  One member of staff was very keen on a ball pool for children and this is listed as "soft play area" in the helpful suggestions.  Umm, you'll notice that the helpful suggestions don't include swimming pool either.

8.  Vauxhall Island site in context
I'm happy that they've done the modelling of the building(s) by taking South London views into consideration.  Considering that we've an ugly great 140 metre tower coming our way, I think I'd have to say that it's more attractive than some eg. Bondway /and/ St George Wharf Tower.  I know that's not saying much, but it doesn't look any worse than the Elephant's Strata, I don't think.  Their "independent study" modelling indicates that the scheme doesn't raise issues in terms of light on residents or parks, and the overshadowing effect on the parks is "minimal".  Vauxhall Park is unaffected and Spring Gardens is only affected on the south-west corner from September to March.  Fair enough, I suppose, and credit to them for ensuring that the parks aren't badly affected.

Due to some well placed trees, the building will hardly be noticeable from Fentiman Road.    Compared with St George Wharf, it rises up quite majestically over Spring Gardens.  I wish we knew what other buildings will appear as it's hard to put it into perspective.  Unfortunately, from Bonnington Square, it looks quite scary.   In fact, if I lived in Bonnington Square, I'd object,but not sure what good it would do.

9.  Vauxhall Island site in context continued...
This board is one that often gets trotted out in various guises.  It's all about how particular buildings will look (often accompanied by strange angles) from north of the river.  As if we should care about north of the river.... Anyway.  I digress.  I shan't be too mean on account of the fact that Kylun have dedicated lots of time to modelling the impact south of the river.  Compared with Millbank Tower, it's barely visible from Parliament Square, which is the view that concerns most people.  I'm not keen on the view from Millbank Road, but then we can't see Vauxhall Sky Gardens or St George Wharf or the proposed Bondway on the modelled photo either, and I suppose those would give the towers some more proportion.

10.  A sustainable, energy-efficient development
Sadly, it doesn't have the turbines (so the service charges should be less), but they are planning on solar photovoltaic electricity generation.

11.  Next steps
Plans will be submitted to Lambeth this summer.  If they like it, (and there aren't any other major oil spills) ;), the first residents could move in around 2015.  Feel free to phone Kylun with questions on: 0845 543 8968 or email vauxhallconsultation@camarguepr.com

I couldn't resist taking a photo of that cheeky chappy, David Boardman, taking photos of the model.  He's the Kennington Association's planning forum chair, and he speaks, quite naturally in terms of hectares per thousand people about green space, density, transport etc. in the way that you and I might discuss buying milk at the local supermarket!

On the model, the two Vauxhall Island towers are in brown.  The white monstrosity at the front is the St George Wharf Tower.  In the background, behind the brown towers, you can just see what I think is the proposed Bondway development.

I know that I'm forever banging on about transport, and I did raise this point at the consultation when I asked what Kylun would have to contribute to the pot to improve transport infrastructure eg. the new Northern line.  It seems, that that little point is up to TFL.  In the meantime, Kylun are in discussuion with TFL (see board 3) about "opening a new entrance to Vauxhall Underground Station".  Is it me, or is Vauxhall underground station going to be a huge warren of "extensions" and "entrances" that act as holding pens for a huge number of frustrated commuters, unable to move, due to the Victoria Line being at capacity?

Vauxhall Cross Island Consultation on 21st and 22nd May

I've received information from KOV that there is to be a consultation on the Vauxhall Island site, which has recently been bought by Kylun Ltd.

Kylun Ltd are giving the public a chance to visit the animals view a public exhibition at Vauxhall City Farm (165 Tyers Street) on Friday 21st May (2pm - 8pm) or Saturday 22nd May (10am - 3pm) on the proposed mixed-use development on the Vauxhall Cross island site.  Hopefully the farm will be open as usual because the exhibition provides a great chance to pop in and sample the bleating, mooing, neighing and oinking.  

Apparently, the exhibition will be a chance to view "comprehensive information" on the plans, and I hope that that will mean basic sketches or drawings so that we have a chance to see how the buildings might look from a distance, as well as how the architecture might fit alongside current buildings.  It will be very interesting to hear how Kylun hope to contribute to enhancing public transport in Vauxhall so as to reduce the current tube station overcrowding.  They'll also be providing feedback forms and polished PR executives development team members for conversation.

All site members will be notified, so do speak up if you live/work nearby and your residence/organisation is not informed.  Vauxhall Society and the Kennington Association both claim not to have been consulted re. Vauxhall Sky Gardens.

More on the Island site owners and development in Vauxhall

The good KOV folk have asked for more details on the company that owns the Island site in Vauxhall where two new tall towers are planned. I briefly posted the location of the site itself, here a few days ago.

The site is in the process of transfer from from Walford Maritime Pension Fund to development company, Kylun Ltd. Kylun Ltd. sent some representatives to KOV, who were apparently astonished to hear about the requirement to provide social housing, but they're only at the early planning stages!

According to their blurb, Kylun Ltd is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) and the Island site will be its first project in the UK. Fal Oil company, an established and successful, private United Arab Emirates oil trading and bunkering company, is providing the financial backing for Kylun’s development operations in the UK. Squire & Partners have been appointed by Kylun as architects.

If planning permission is granted, Kylun will identify a development partner to deliver the scheme.