Consultation for Vauxhall Swimming pool and student apartments on 30 - 60 South Lambeth Road

(Image retrieved from Google Maps 22nd August 2011 ©Google 2011)

(Image taken from developer Downing's Vauxhall site)

A two day consultation event will be held in September concerning a planning application on 30 - 60 Lambeth Road, SW8 for 580 student apartments and leisure use, including a 20m x 9m swimming pool!! The site is waste ground at present and used for car storage, so it won't be missed. The complex would be located almost opposite Vauxhall Park.

The suggestion of a swimming pool has been raised repeatedly by local residents and is an exciting possiblity, but we know from other sources that swimming pools are very expensive for local authorities to run (with real costs per visit in the region of £12) so we'll have to see what happens... It's not clear whether it would be a council-run facility or a private facility which would be open to local residents.

The commerical property developer, Downing would be developing the site, and according to Oval News, want to submit a planning application in Autumn 2011. The good old Labour councillors of Oval Ward didn't mention the swimming pool aspect on their blog, which is strange, but maybe they didn't spot it... The developers even have a Vauxhall blog up and running for plans concerning their new site: http://www.downingvauxhall.blogspot.com/

According to the information I've seen, the swimming pool would be at lower ground-level, visible from South Lambeth Road (could be interesting if they move the bus station there), with the student housing on upper floors. The information I have doesn't mention how high the planned building will be (it mentions the fourth floor, but no higher). They'd have to go some way to beat proposals such as the defeated Bondway and the St George Wharf Tower... I think the development falls within the VNEB development area.

The consultation will be held at Vauxhall Christian Centre (105 Tyers Street, SE11) on Thursday 8th September (4pm - 8pm) and Saturday 10th September (11am - 4pm).

This is a consultation not to miss! Perhaps they're hoping that the swimming pool suggestion will entice locals so much that we will completely fail to notice that student accomodation can be disruptive for local residents... To be fair though, there isn't much residential housing nearby (Langley Lane and Lawn Lane perhaps). Surely it wouldn't present residents with greater disturbance than that currently presented by patrons of Fire though?

Edit 22:02 on 22nd August: Vauxhall Society have since published their article on 30-60 South Lambeth Road which is apparently proposed at "32-storey or so" (would be useful to have that clarified). I didn't know that the building was proposed to be that high when I wrote my article so I have not put their negative slant on it. I'm sort of resigned to Vauxhall turning into Sky Scraper corner now. I reckon Downing will ask for 32 storeys and be granted about 25. Obviously, a tower that tall is likely to cast shadows over Vauxhall Park, which will probably cue a renewed "shadows over the park" debate. However, I'm inclined to think more local people will be swayed by the swimming pool than they will be the shadows argument, so kudos to Downing for being quite clever with this proposal. Kylun want the Triangle site to contain a 41 storey tower, and all we'll get is a cinema and champagne bar. Downing only want 32 storeys and local residents will get a whole swimming pool...! Anyhow, readers MUST go and check out Vauxhall Society's article because somebody has a lovely way with words. They say:

"Isn’t the ‘street scene’ perhaps animated enough around Vauxhall Cross, some might ask, without drivers being distracted by kerbside vistas of aquatic romping?"

I'm rather in favour of a slightly reduced tall tower (25 sounds reasonable, right?) but I definitely support the aquatic romping. Vauxhall rather lacks aquatic romping at present...

Future of former Lilian Baylis School and SAZ (KOV meeting write up - Part 2)

At the KOV meeting on Monday, after we'd heard about the refurbishment of Vauxhall railway station, Brian Dickens of Sports Action Zone (SAZ) took the platform to speak about plans for the former Lilian Baylis School on Lollard Street.  A short paper was circulated (apologies for picture quality):

New readers might benefit from a little recent history.  In February 2009, Lambeth Council put together a hub group (All Nations Church, Sports Action Zone and Ethelred Nursery) to create a future at the former Lilian Baylis.  On 14th December 2009, Lambeth Concil issued a statement to decommision the hub group.  I wrote a lengthy post showing one way that the December 2009 statement might be interpreted.  Nothing more has been said on the matter, and when I sent Steve Reed a Tweet in October 2009, all he would say is "Still negotiating a consortium to run the old school site, details public soon, intending it shd represent the whole community not just part."  Go and read the 2009 update on the former Lilian Baylis  for the more recent history.  If you want to go even further back (because Lurking about SE11 takes history seriously), you can read my definitive potted summary from 2005 - 2009.

Considering all of that, I hoped that the next part of the process would be the announcement of a new consortium to manage the site (as per Steve Reed's Tweet).  I expected that a varied combination of organisations would speak about their plans for the site. Despite heartily commending their proposals, it was slightly disappointing to receive a presentation from Sports Action Zone alone.  Mr Dickens noted that since 2005, SAZ's aim has been to "develop the community through sport".  He also commented, "it's not only sport, it is a community hub, it is intergenerational.  It's about health, it's about arts, it's about music media.  It is about cycling and helping young people put bikes together.  It is about a whole range of opportunities for the local community."  Accordingly, 90% of the onsite provision is free and there are 90,000 attendances every year.  There are case studies now from young people who've changed their lives as a result of being involved in projects on site:

Working with the South Bank Employer's Group, SAZ successfully obtained £75,000 from the Government's Community Builds Program.  With that, they've examined a sustainable approach to developing a portion of the former Lilian Baylis site.  "Part of the problem," Brian Dickens acknowledged, is that "there has never been an understanding of what the site is going to become".  Well, precisely.  The site is listed in its entirety, making developent very tricky.  Despite this, SAZ have identified an area of the site (I think it's the section showing the sports courts on the board below) which looks as though it could be developed. Through the Community Builds Program, £2 million of funds can be accessed to refurbish the site and SAZ are speaking to several investors about bringing in additional money for the project:

Some of the investment on site has already been made.  Barclays have provided brand new tennis court and a fourth generation national turf pitch was donated by Nike.  SAZ want to put an athletics track at the back of the site, expand the area available for sports on site and replace the existing sports hall through bringing in external funding.  SAZ also hope to work alongside Lambeth Council with the appointed architects to review the Statement of Significance to consider how the listed buildings on the site might be used.  SAZ would like the site to be a community hub with a remit that is wider than sport.  This will require further consultation with the community.  However, proposal need to be submitted to the Community Builds Program very swiftly.  SAZ are thus hoping that their the plans will go before Lambeth Council Cabinet on the 22 November to give them the opportunity to secure the long term future of the site under the auspices of a Trust which would comprise members of SAZ, Lambeth Council and the local community.

It's an impressive overview, and quite clever, considering that the largest portion of the investment needs to be put into the listed buildings which SAZ will not seek funding to rebuild.  If SAZ can pull this off, the question will be how the rest of the funding might be secured to put the rest of the former Lilian Baylis into good use.

Brian Dickens took a number of questions from members of the audience.  One audience member asked about whether the trust would be formed for Area A (the section of the site that KOV hope to develop) or for the entire site.  Mr Dickens said that he thought that, in the first instance, the trust would be responsible only for Area A, but that would not stop the trust evolving to take in the rest of the site.  The difficulty is that  substantial  investment is required to develop the rest of the site.  In response to a later question however about getting a trust off the ground, Mr Dickens thought it might comprise only SAZ and Lambeth Council members.  I'd have thought that this might compromise its claim to independence, but never mind!

A representative from the Kennington Association asked whether Ecuadorian Volleyball could be retained on site.  Mr Dickens  affirmed that they're an important of the project and noted that SAZ were not looking to exclude anybody so, whether playing outdoors or indoors, Ecuadorian volleyball would always be a part of the project.  Somebody asked about the link up between Alford House and SAZ (especially important, considering the squeeze that will likely be placed on the funding of youth projects).  A brief response was received; "we're still working very closely with them, and we'd continue to work with them about how to involve them in anything that's going forward".  Another audience member wanted to know whether sponsorship from Barclays would be developed.  Further discussions will apparently take place about how they might be involved with other parts of the site.  SAZ hope to look at developing apprenticeships to widen the project so that it's not solely about sport.

Many questions were forthcoming about the possibility of a swimming pool on site.  Brian Dickens commented that swimming pools were very expensive to install and run, and was much more committed to the temporary swimming pool concept that resulted in this year's 12 metre pool.  It seems a number of people support these temporary pools.  Muslim women are able to use them since other facilities are unsuitable, and they are also useful for teaching children how to swim.  72% of children from Vauxhall School learned to swim in the 6 week period of the temporary pool's existence.  I'm afraid that I don't see any permanent swimming pool funding being forthcoming (from Barclays or otherwise) and would rather continue to try to support proposals for a new adequately sized swimming pool at Elephant and Castle.  In any case, Lambeth Council would argue that their new Coin St swimming pool in Waterloo should serve North Lambeth's requirements.

One of the final comments was, for me, the most telling.  "I went to look at the pool, but I found the site barren and empty, and I didn't know if it was a training pool or whether anybody could use it...".  Since SAZ continually stress their desire to look "beyond sport" and be a true "community hub" they could improve their service to the local community by providing information about what's available at present.  Perhaps a weekly schedule of classes/training sessions on site, an idea of who is entitled to attend, a cost structure and opening times might be forthcoming.  I'm afraid that, despite visiting the SAZ website, I'm still somewhat in the dark about whether SAZ is just for young people or whether it provides sporting facilities for the entire SE11 community.  I'm broadly support the proposal, but I feel that the notion of an independent trust still needs to be fleshed out, and SAZ must demonstrate how it can offer services that will benefit the entirety of North Lambeth.

Swimming pool at Elephant and Castle, or How Co-operative is the Co-operative Council?

Thanks to an article on London-SE1, we've learned that Southwark Council are consulting residents on whether they desire a swimming pool in the re-developed Fusion centre in Elephant and Castle.  A swimming pool would be of considerable benefit to the residents of SE11, and the north of the Borough of Lambeth.  Anybody in Princes, Oval, Bishops, Vassall or Stockwell ward would certainly benefit from this facility, as the nearest available public pool is currently located in Brixton.  Lambeth Council have proposed a pool in Waterloo underneath the Coin Street tower, but many North Lambeth residents actually live closer to Elephant than they do to Waterloo.  Swimming has provable health benefits for the elderly and the young, residents for whom even short trips can prove particularly difficult, so I suggest that Lambeth residents with any interest in the matter fill out the consultation questionnaire here.  (Be aware that the number "5" on the questionnaire means "most important").

"What a good idea!  I'd really like a local swimming pool", you might think to yourself.  What you might not know is that one exists at present; it's in the Elephant & Castle Fusion Leisure centre.  Unfortunately, it has fallen into disrepair and needs to be replaced.  So Southwark Council are consulting on whether or not to replace a facility that they should be providing at present.  The reason given for this pointless consultation is that Southwark council officers are concerned that they might be unable to meet their leisure commitments on the basis of the financial squeeze.  However, due to the fact that most of SE11 is in Lambeth, many local residents will not be included in the consultation.  Obviously, residents living in Kennington, Oval or Vauxhall would be much closer to the propsed pool than Southwark residents in Peckham or East Dulwich.  So, I'm proposing that the news of the potential pool be circulated as widely as possible to Lambeth residents so that we have a chance to comment on the consultation.

On the basis that we're all good friends really (since Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Councils are all Labour controlled) and we're meant to be thinking of ways to be co-operative and share services, I thought it might be worth suggesting to Cllr Mark Harrison (Princes Ward) that he could campaign on behalf of Princes residents to enable the pool in the complex to be replaced.  After all, according to London-SE1,

[Southwark] "Council leader Peter John said last month: 'We do want to see a swimming pool at the site and we're determined to deliver'".

So, it should be a done deal, a fait accompli....  But unfortunately, despite our very poor local leisure coverage in the area (kindly mapped for us by Jason Cobb), Cllr Harrison considers the matter would be better taken up by individual residents.  After all, maybe many local residents wouldn't consider a pool a priority.  Bah.  Unlikely.  Here are the Tweets in question:

And this is Cllr Harrison's response:

So, let's demonstrate to Southwark / Lambeth Labour group that local residents would seek to prioritize a local swimming pool, and put pressure on them to provide this type of essential service, despite cuts. Let's demonstrate that there is a clear majority view in favour of such a service. 

Why not write to Cllr Mark Harrison outlining your views (if you're a Princes Ward constituent) at mharrison@lambeth.gov.uk to ask him to put pressure on the Labour coalition of councils?  Here's the link again to fill out the Southwark Council questionnaire (it's very short).  After all, shouldn't the Co-operative Council actually, y'know, co-operate?

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.]

Olympic swimming pool opens in Kennington

Ha ha!

Thanks to Mr Onionbag for flagging to my attention the fact that because Lambeth doesn't currently offer any indoor swimming pool facilities (other than Brixton), the Council have decided to open one in Kennington. I hear you excitedly clammering and exclaiming "where, where?". You'll want to don your swimming gear and head for the former Lilian Baylis School, and go for a dip. All of those people who google this blog for keywords like kennington gym, gay gym and swimming pool in Kennington will now finally be satisfied. It is /such/ good news indeed that it has made it on to the front page of Lambeth Life, right alongside the clamp down on prostitution...

[I ought probably to mention that the pool is only 12m long. This will be a relief for those who have yet to earn their 10m swimming badge. But it's only fair of me to warn you before you get your swimming trunks on... Just make sure there's nobody else in there first :) ]

See, this is another reason why SE11 is a fabulous and spiffy place to live. It seems we have our own swimming pool.