Former head teacher James Walker wins unfair dismissal claim against Lambeth Council

Back in November 2010, I ran a piece observing that the former head-teacher of Henry Fawcett Primary School, James Walker, had launched an unfair dismissal claim against Lambeth Council and the school's executive board for his dismissal in November 2008 shortly after he returned from work following a battle with cancer. 

Mr Walker was dismissed from his job as head-teacher on account of allegations of bullying and harassament from a staff member (Penny Bermingham), who was found by the Employment Tribunal not to be a credible witness.  Last Tuesday (2nd August 2011), Mr Walker (who represented himself) won his case, but the Evening Standard is reporting that he is giving up teaching and moving away from London.

The case was heard at the Employment Tribunal Court in West Croydon, and the Tribunal considered Mr Walker to have been treated with an approach that "bordered callousness". 

Mr Walker had worked in education in the Borough of Lambeth for 18 years (both as a Deputy Head and Head teacher), but the Tribunal found Lambeth Council had painted him in the most damaging light.  Mr Walker reported to the Tribunal that Lambeth had undertaken actions such as clearing his office, destroying his files and failing to specify their allegations agaisnt him.  The tribunal noted that Lambeth had failed to act impartially.  Mr Walker submitted that he was threatened with disciplinary action if he refused to resign the day after his first CT scan.

The judgement (Walker v Lambeth) accepted Mr Walker's evidence that he had not been aggressive towards Penny Bermingham.  A former staff member observed, "I witnessed Penny to be cruel during James's absence, humiliating staff and attempting to make them feel insignificant and worthless."

Beyond the injustice that was perpetrated upon James Walker, there is the matter of the effect upon Henry Fawcett school, which was taken out of special measures in June 2010.  Mr Walker said, "...Experienced and talent teachers have left, parents have lost confidence and needy children have been neglected.  It is a disgrace that Lambeth has used public funds to push me out of my job and I hope the actions of those responsible for this waste will be thoroughly investigated’".

The experienced teacher had previously been enjoyed a successful role at Lambeth, having been placed in charge of the Children's Centre attached to the school in 2005.  Indeed, his success in raising achievement at Henry Fawcett had previously been praised by the executive director of Children and Young People’s Services, Phyllis Dunipace and former secretary of state, David Milliband.

Unfortunately, by February 2009, Ms Dunipace wanted to remove Mr Walker from his post, and, it has been alleged in a press release issued by the family, commissioned a strategy for so-doing.

Interestingly, Ms Dunipace retired from Lambeth Council in summer 2010.  Penny Bermingham remains a teacher at neighbouring Ashmole Primary school in Oval.

One can only hope that Lambeth Council has measures in place to ensure that no case like this one can recur.  Nobody appears to have been painted in a particularly positive light, and Mr Walker is said to be leaving teaching and leaving London.  Our local children deserve better.

Kate Hoey twists the knife into Lambeth Council and Cathy Deplessis steps down as chair of Lambeth Living

Readers affected by the ongoing saga of Lambeth Living (the Arms Length Management Company who manage all of Lambeth Council's tenancies and leaseholds) are probably now aware that Cathy Deplessis, Chief Executive of Lambeth Living stepped down two days ago on the 26th January.  Her resignation appeared to be mired in controversy, since it was denied as late as 4pm on the 26th and only confirmed during the Lambeth Living Board meeting of the same evening.  Ms Deplessis' departure follows hot on the heels of the Christmas Eve resignation of David Thompson, Lambeth Living's Officer in Charge of Major works.  I am guessing that Lambeth Living might have become unmanageable.

I refer interested readers to an excellent piece in the Streatham Guardian which reports that immediately after the resignation of Ms Deplessis' was announced, another board member, Chris Robertson, also tendered his resignation.  According to the Streatham Guardian, Mr Robertson claimed,

"I stood for election with the sole intention of representing the best interests of Lambeth residents. It has become clear in recent months that Lambeth residents are not being represented by the board and decisions are made without any reference or information to the board."

In a House of Commons debate on housing yesterday, Kate Hoey made damning remarks about Lambeth Living, and questionned whether government money might not best have been spent upon poor standard housing, rather than on Lambeth Living itself:

I would not want hon. Members to think that all ALMOs have been wonderful successes. The ALMO in Lambeth, Lambeth Living... has been pretty much of a disaster. The chief executive is leaving this weekend and the deputy left just before Christmas. The tenants in Lambeth are in a ridiculous situation. Their ALMO was going to get them a two-star rating. That did not happen, and the tenants are now left with huge amounts of very bad housing with no one wanting to do anything about it. The ALMO, therefore, was not the answer; the answer would have been to put the money directly into the estates that really needed it. Lambeth has some desperately bad estates. They need the money and I am not sure that spending money just on ALMOs made any difference.

Kate Hoey further spoke of her frustration as an MP at being constantly confronted by constituents at her surgeries, who live in over-crowded accommodation because she knows that so little can be done to resolve their issues.  Then, since the opportunity arose, she did the usual and slated Lambeth Council itself, damning its entire culture, whilst speaking out to protect the workers at the bottom of the pile:

"Lambeth is one of those boroughs in which politics change, council leadership changes and coalitions form-we have had it all during my time as a Member of Parliament -but one thing that does not seem to change is the culture and how it is run, particularly in terms of housing... 

I add my thanks to the people at the bottom of the structure-those who do the cleaning on the estates, particularly those who are in-house. Despite all the changes at the top, in which they never seem to be involved, and despite all the factors against them, they try to deliver good services, where they can. They are at the sharp end where the cuts will come, which will not affect the people on £250,000 a year-the directors and assistant directors of which we seem to have so many, who get huge amounts of money that never seems to be cut."

I'm quoting Hoey's remarks extensively, partly because I think she is right about the Council, but partly to outline how convienient a strategy it is to continually blame a whole succession of leadership in Lambeth.  I'd have thought that since this insightful and telling Hoey Report from Brian Deer in 1993, Hoey might have been able to wield some of her influence to make improvements within the Council.  The Council has been (except for the brief spell under the Lib Dems) under Labour control for years, and Hoey is a member of the Labour party.  It seems somewhat disingeuous for an MP who is known and admired for her work amongst local people, to be forever palming the institutional blame on to others.  Am I being unfair?  Is there anything Hoey could have done?  And if there isn't, then how might politics in Lambeth be fixed?

Anyhow, that's not all.  During her speech, Ms Hoey referred to an estate which is likely to be in SE11 (or possibly the western boundary of SE1) on account of it being  "a 10-minute walk from the House of Commons" in which "the windows are falling out".  Does anybody know which estate she has in mind?  In an attempt to have this blog focus on issues pertinent to all local residents, it seems only fair to record this information.  If your windows are falling out, or you know somebody whose windows are falling out, I'd be happy, with permission, to come around and photograph the damage and continually witter on about it until it is fixed.  Your local councillor should be aware of the issue, but it's worth making continuous noise about it.

Kate Hoey also took aim at local contractors, who are apparently akin to cartels:

"It is usually the same old companies that get the jobs anyway. All those people go around tendering against each other and operating cosy little cartels. It often ends up with someone getting a lot of money, and sometimes the standard of the work is not adequate."

But really, I fear that perhaps Steve Reed and Kate Hoey are actually in agreement with one another, since Hoey's strategies for fixing the mess sound a lot like the co-operative Council's.  (Remember no area will be witheld from the Co-op Coucil strategy, and much of it involves volunteers and people with initiative...)

"It upsets me that we have many empty flats and homes in Lambeth. When a tenant moves out or dies, their home is empty. Suddenly, that home cannot be let, because it is not up to decent homes standards, even though someone was living there two or three weeks ago, which is absolutely ridiculous. We should be able to allow people with a bit of nous who are on the housing waiting list to go in and do their work, like the old Greater London Council used to do. As long as the electrics and the health and safety are right, I do not see why anyone should not be allowed to go in and take the flat."

So far, so good, right.  Doesn't this sound like the return of the much vaunted volunteers, who are all going to spring out of the woodwork to form the Big Society?  Quite frankly, I'm sure we could find a team of local volunteers who'd be interested in helping redecorate empty properties from time to time.  This is certainly something that the charity Kids Company do periodically.  Unfortunately, it appears that the Council is not quite that co-operative yet and 10 properties were sold in 2009 for £1.68 million... The end of 2010 showed another £2.63 million made by Lambeth as they sold off another 13 council homes.  So maybe Hoey and Reed aren't singing from the same hymn sheet, since Hoey strongly states that this is unaccaptable. 

"Instead, we have flats sitting empty for months and even years. Then the council says, "We had better sell them off now because we cannot afford to make them good." It is absolutely scandalous, and I hope that the Minister will say that he will encourage such a route."

The coffee morning being held at St Anselm's tomorrow with Leader of Lambeth, Steve Reed and Kate Hoey both present in the same room should be rather interesting.

Local Councillor Coffee Morning (Princes Ward) & Cinema Museum exhibition on history of Wellington Mills and Cooper Close

I've been asked by the Princes Ward Councillors to publish a reminder that they're holding a coffee morning at St Anselm's Church Hall (Kennington Cross) on Saturday 29th January from 11am – 12:30pm.

All three of the Princes ward councillors, Lorna Campbell, Mark Harrison and Stephen Morgan will be present.  In addition, Kate Hoey MP, Val Shawcross (London Assembly Member) and Steve Reed (Leader of Lambeth Council) will also be at the coffee morning.  I don't think I've ever known all of these distinguished figures together in one place, so it would be a great time to go and speak to them re. matters pertinent to the Mayor (TFL etc.), or to the Vauxhall Constituency or to the local ward.  Has anybody got any ideas for questions?

Also on Saturday, from 11am - 2pm is a chance to view the Cinema Museum (2 Duggard Way, SE11 4TH) and its collection.  You might like to take the chance to visit an exhibition about the history of two Waterloo estates, Wellington Mills and Cooper Close.  The info. I've received says it's a family friendly event, with activities for children, cartoons in the cinema and a face painter.  Tea and cake will be served in the cafe.

"Unfair dismissal" case launched by ex-head of Henry Fawcett School

The ex-head teacher of Henry Fawcett Primary School, James Walker, has launched a constructive unfair dismissal case against Lambeth Council and the school's executive board. 

Mr Walker was in charge of the Henry Fawcett school from September '99 until February '08, when he was diagnosed with cancer and underwent two operations.  Seven months later, (September '08), he returned to work, only to be suspended in November '08 due to an allegation made by a staff member (which was unrelated to the school's educational standards or financial management).  Following the suspension, he submitted a disability discrimination claim against Lambeth Council.

During his suspension, in July '09, Lambeth Council dismissed 12 governors from Henry Fawcett.  Kate Hoey said to the Evening Standard at the time, "I feel that [Mr Walker] has not been treated in a way that would generally be considered to be justified and when the governors supported him, they got rid of them."

In September '09, whilst Mr Walker had been absent from the school, an Ofsted inspection was undertaken, and the school was considered to be failing.  Henry Fawcett was immediately placed in special measures (but has more recently had these removed).

Mr Walker claimed to have "management concerns" in the school, prior to his sick-leave which were "dismissed", but these were later raised with him upon his return to work.  He resigned recently (September '10), but has now launched a constructive unfair dismissal claim which means that a resignation has occured because an employment contract has theoretically been substantially breached

It would be useful to have a little more insider information on this matter.  It is, however, worth noting, that Kate Hoey MP has backed James Walker, which potentially demonstrates the existence of an injustice at some stage.

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.

Cleaver Square Fete 2010 - photos

Yesterday was  an exciting day in Kennington Village (as it was introduced at Cleaver Square fete).  (This, after all, is Old North Surrey dahling, and not South London).  Anyhow, what with the frivolities of the Cleaver Square Fete and the celebration of Portugal Day in Kennington Park (photos will go up tomorrow), it was hard to know where to go (or what to eat) first, but help was at hand:

You can't beat a good Kennington cupcake:

Apologies to the headless people, but I was focusing on the cakes:

Manning the tombola...

Did I mention that I love cake...?  

The raspberry sponges at the bottom were incredible:

I counted three cake stalls.  Yum.

(The Punch and Judy show was very good, and the adults seemed to enjoy it just as much as the children). 

That's the way to do it...

Oh, Mr Punch.  Didn't they warn you never to smile at a crocodile?

Too late.  Mr Punch was eaten for lunch :-(

Beautiful fabrics on sale, and a lovely smile:

Kate Hoey, MP, opened the fete in a rather special summer boater.   

A summer fete is just not a summer fete without a pensive looking vicar.  In the event, it didn't rain.

Special thanks should go to Winkworth, who sponsored the fete to the tune of £4000 and ran the raffle.  

Well Done chaps. 

Kate Hoey is proud to have been re-elected to serve the residents of the constituency, and here she is again, enjoying herself in style.

Kennington Tandoori (KT) cooked up some superb chicken biryani:

We were entertained by a variety of acts.  Firstly, a little light jazz...

Followed by some popular tunes...

And topped-off by this rather powerful opera singer!

The Kennington Association had a little help from their friends, the Kennington Bookshop, who kindly donated unsaleable stock, to raise money for local projects.  

This lead to a rush, as the SE11 literati mafia stormed in.  

The Kennington Association were not the only people present in spiffing outfits...

You'd never, in a million years, guess that this photo was taken in inner-city London, would you?

Another general crowd shot that demonstrates how well attended this event was...  The organisers did a fantastic job, as usual...

You guessed right.  It's another cake stall!

These chaps (working for Tomorrow's People, a charity that enables young people to find worthwhile employment) are usually present, come rain or shine, outside St Anselm's Church on a Saturday, selling flowers and plants.  Business looked brisk today...

The only summer fete in England that can boast real French lobster!

Workers and volunteers from the Parish of North Lambeth, enjoying the fete and furthering consultation on the St Anselm's project (more on that this week...)

A bee-autiful mosaic, and some Lambeth honey:

The worker bees, keeping bee-sy at the Fete...

A fantastic day that attracts people from Kennington and beyond.  It's fair to say that a good time was had by all.  (However, if you happen to see yourself (or somebody you know) in one of the photographs, and wish me to remove it, please drop me an email.)

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?

Kate Hoey holds Vauxhall constituency

Unsurprisingly, Kate Hoey has won and held the Vauxhall constituency for Labour.  That is unsurprising.  Well Done, Kate.

But she's also already made a spiky proclamation (there's a surprise), with one source claiming that she announced at about 12:30 last night, "if the results are as they look tonight, Gordon will go very, very quickly."  I don't think Kate would be too upset by that result, as there's not a lot of love lost there.

What /is/ interesting is that according to the BBC, the Conservatives improved on their share of the vote in Vauxhall by 7% (with Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens all losing some of the vote).  Does that reflect the changing demographic of the constituency?  Is it a result of the boundaries having changed?  Or, is it part of an un-South London-like Conservative swing? 

Repeating the story in the rest of the country, there was an upsurge in the number of people coming out to vote in Vauxhall.  Turnout was at 57.7% this year, up from 46.9% in 2005, but that doesn't sound particularly high to me.  By comparison, in 1992, 62.4% of the constituency turned out to vote.

Even despite our extensive and colourful list of candidates (somebody was supposedly present at the Vauxhall result, in a fox outfit), support for minorities was low.  After the extensive online Drinkall campaign, I'm surprised that the anti-capitalists won fewer seats than the Socialist Party of Great Britain.  The English Democrats (despite failing to appear at the hustings) came 5th, winning more votes than any other of the small minority parties.

Kate Hoey's new HQ

This is Kate Hoey's campaign headquarters for Vauxhall constituency.  It's located on the site of the old Amici in Kennington, SE11 (which makes me wonder whether the old restaurant is no more).  It's a bit dark as the photo was shot at night.  I promised, "more later", so now I feel obliged to write something!

This shop is an astonishing declaration of intent, in the heart of Kennington.  I'm lead to wonder whether any of the other parties have the budgets to set up shop front offices in central locations, such as these.  Indeed, I feel the stirring of an impassioned rant about the weaknesses of first past the post voting systems emerging.  I've no objection, per se, to campaign headquarters, but I sometimes wish that the platform for political expression was more level because I hardly think the Lib Dems or Greens could afford to do the same.

On the other hand, prominent campaign headquarters are certainly preferable to all of those nasty estate-agent style Tory boards that have appeared on Kennington Road and some of the squares in the area (photo taken by Labour's Jack Hopkins):

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.]