Political stripes revealed - will not remain neutral in face of Labour smear campaign

A few days ago, after a bit of Boris-bashing, I was accused of being politically non-neutral.  That is probably true.  I'm deeply non-neutral, despite my best efforts.  I have now written in the "About me" link that:

"Politically, I'm generally on the side of the people who do not currently hold power in local or national government."

The problem is that my non-neutrality tends to reveal itself under the guise of dislike or disgust of some policy or lack of action.  I am not a member of any national political party, and I'm a true floating voter.  I tend to vote for people, rather than parties as I tend to think you're better off with local politicans who act on your behalf, rather than those with whom you might agree on every issue.  I thought I'd give you a guide to my current general South London political feelings so that you can see that my non-neutral feelings are not particularly uni-directional.

Boris Johnson - Unimpressed by super highway that, in reality, is just blue paint.  Unimpressed by abandonment of cross-river tram.  Unimpressed by attempts to close the South London line.  Unimpressed by refusal to turn Vauxhall into a high-rise mecca, despite supposed dislike of tall buildings.  Unimpressed by attempt to regenerate Nine Elms by "intensification", without having any funding plan for Northern line extension or solution to overcrowding on Victoria line at Vauxhall.  Unimpressed by attempt to include Elephant and Castle in the Crossrail levy, despite it not being anywhere near Crossrail.  Unimpressed by money being found for Crossrail in North London, but no equivalent South London transport investment.

Local Labour lot - Pleased that none of current Labour councillors have run off to Bristol like the last one did.  Pleased to receive regular email updates re. planning consent and bike plans.  Unimpressed that former-Lilian Baylis project still has no legs, and refuse to be fobbed off by the SAZ occupation.  Unimpressed that Beaufoy project was scuppered by insiders at Lambeth Council and is also going nowhere.  Accept that current Councillors appear to do their job adequately, but would be pleased to see a bit more vision and "fight" for the local area.

Lambeth Labour lot (in power) - Deeply deeply unimpressed that the campaign to re-elect Labour is proceeding on the basis of "slag off the Lib Dems" and videos that contain no policy content.  Not impressed by the level of leisure facilities available (or rather, unavailable) to Lambeth residents (particularly re. swimming).  Not impressed by the number of Lambeth leaseholder service charge queries that I(!) have received due to the outsourcing of accommodation management to Lambeth Living.  Annoyed by general Labour smugness.  [I have said on Twitter, in recent days, that unless the Lambeth Labour lot clean up their act, and cease publishing antagonistic videos, that I will refuse to be non-neutral in the next election.  Haven't decided who I'd publicly support, but I despise dirty campaigning.]

Lambeth Lib Dem lot (not in power) - Unimpressed that they only seem to pop up with vigour near to an election.  Unimpressed that, if not carefully watched, they could launch into an aggressive anti-Labour campaign, without detailing their own policies.  Quite impressed by local Oval councillor who spoke up persuasively at recent Nine Elms consultation meeting.

Lambeth Conservative lot (not in power) - Again, tend not to think they do very much outside of local election time.  Neither impressed nor unimpressed by them, but think they lack gravitas locally.

Caroline Pidgeon (Lib Dem London Assembly member)- Quite impressed that Caroline Pidgeon is so re-active when it comes to local SE11 issues.  Quite impressed to have received timely and relevant emails from Cllr Pidgeon when questionned.

Kate Hoey (Labour) - Generally impressed by Kate Hoey, as am in awe of anybody that can topple a speaker.  Particularly approve of Kate Hoey's anti-war and anti-trident stances.  Secretly admire Kate's public disavowal of the whole of Lambeth Council.  Deeply impressed to see Kate Hoey at a number of very small local meetings that couldn't really be used for political capital.  Unimpressed by Kate's occasional attempts in campaign literature to claim that the work of local organisations are somehow all attributable to her in the end.

Whatever happened to Vauxhall pier? (or when will Boris Johnson notice South London?)

Today I received a response from London Assembly member, Cllr Pidgeon about the historical representations she made re. a Vauxhall pier (once proposed outside St George Wharf), and the re-zoning of Kennington tube.  The tube re-zoning was covered thoroughly yesterday and can be summed up by saying, "Boris will not rezone Kennington or Bermondsey because the gainers would be South Londoners, and the losers would be North Londoners".

However, the matter of a proposed pier at Vauxhall has been rather forgotten, and deserves further investigation:

First, remember what Boris said about river trail in July 2008, when he was visiting Merton and Wandsworth:

"I was very pleased to have able to see for myself the opportunities that river transport can provide. The Thames is a great alternative to the bus or the Tube and fits very well with my administration's desire to see many modes of transport used to travel about London."

Secondly, remember what Boris said about river travel in November 2009 when he was Oysterizing the river:

"Our aim is for the Thames to become an integral part of London's transport network, which is why we're also working to provide clearer signage to the piers and services that are available, in order to make using the river much easier for Londoners and visitors to the Capital."

Clearly, Boris' river strategy does not seem to include putting Vauxhall on the river just yet.

Back in September 2009, Cllr Pidgeon raised, as follows::

"The LDA in the River Thames Pier Plan has indicated that a pier near Vauxhall Station as part of the St. George's Wharf development would bring significant advantages to the local area... while simultaneously reducing pressure on local [transport] services. Can you disclose (a) what progress, if any, has been made on facilitating the eventual construction of a pier at Vauxhall, and (b) whether discussions between TfL River Services, the LDA, the London Borough of Lambeth and the developers of St. George's Wharf have taken place over this proposal?

In his response, Boris disagreed that the River Thames Pier Plan indicated that a pier near Vauxhall Station would bring advantages (which makes me wonder about Cllr Pidgeon's choice of this document).  Boris quoted the plan here (see appendix G) which says:

"It is clear that public transport access to this site is already very good. The provision of an additional travel choice, in the form of commuter river services, would therefore bring about limited benefits, and is unlikely to be attractive in comparison with the frequency and journey times of the range of other modes available at Vauxhall Cross Interchange. 

The role of the pier in serving the leisure market is considered to be limited due to the lack of major attractions in the Vauxhall area. Leisure visitors travelling to London by rail are also unlikely to access the river via Vauxhall, with Waterloo station forming the most likely gateway into central London. Based on these potentially limited benefits for commuters and leisure visitors, the Pier Plan does not therefore advocate a pier at this location."

BUT... I went back and checked the River Thames Pier Plan.  What Boris didn't quote in his appendix, even though it's on the end of one of the paragraphs in question is:

"However, the potential role of River transport in serving the development proposals which emerge from Battersea/Nine Elms/Vauxhall Opportunity Area Planning Framework should be reviewed."

I can see this one working out really well.  What's the likelihood that nobody can secure funding for the Northern Line Extension to Battersea? Instead, somebody will have the bright idea that if we place a pier at Vauxhall and one at Battersea, we can transport commuters from Battersea to Vauxhall by boat, and then they can use the already over-crowded Vauxhall Station!

The Mayor's Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Planning document says...

p97, "New piers to be provided within the OA at appropriate locations i.e. at Battersea Power Station"

On p117 (and following), maps are provided with various pier locations on them, including Vauxhall.  However, suggestion for a pier at Vauxhall is nowhere explicitly stated in the document.

Waiting for the Nine Elms expansion is not satisfactory.  We're already looking at over-crowding at Vauxhall Underground station, which would indicate commuter demand is very high.  Additionally, the current expansion of residential developments on the Albert Embankment would mean that the pier proposed at Embankment Park Plaza Hotel could be built long before Nine Elms gets off the ground.  When is Boris Johnson going to notice South London?

Impressed by London Assembly - focus on puddles & transport

Somehow, the question and answer database for London Assembly members has utterly eluded me until today.  In it, I discovered the answers to loads of questions (puddles in Kennington, pier at Vauxhall, re-zoning tube stations) etc.  Here's a sample of some of our ongoing issues:

Q. 17/3/2010 - Cllr Shawcross - "There is a gap in the bus network between Waterloo and Vauxhall Stations. An easy solution to this issue is the extension of Bus Route 381 from County Hall to Vauxhall Bus Station. This would also vastly improve access to St Thomas’s Hospital. Will the Mayor please ask TfL to investigate the feasibility of this proposal?"

A. Answer forthcoming after meeting.

[This is very interesting.  I wonder who submits the questions.  Maybe SE11 lurkers could start tabling some questions.  I recall hearing somebody ask very recently why it's not possible to get a bus from Kennington to Chelsea.  I suppose you could walk/bus to Oval, bus to Vauxhall, and then bus from Vauxhall to Chelsea....  On the other hand, I wonder who actually designs the routes.  Who actually decides whether Lewisham gets connected to Hampstead?]

Q.  27/1/2010 - Cllr Pidgeon - "What work are TfL doing to prevent the pooling of water on Kennington Park Road –particularly by the crossings?

A. Mayor Boris (shortened) - "TfL has arranged for its highway maintenance works contractor to cleanse the adjacent drainage system, which will involve emptying the gullies and cleaning out the culverts to allow the water to freely disperse. The works are due to be complete by 28 January."

[Has this happened? It was still pooling by the tube station, last time week.]

The only thing I can't find on the Assembly web site is an RSS feed, otherwise I could just pipe everything through to Twitter and we could be automatically informed of whenever Val Shawcross or Caroline Pidgeon mentioned issues affecting us.  Anyhow, I'm really impressed that they actually ask Boris about puddles!!

Possibility of rezoning Kennington tube from Zone 1 to Zone 2 - any progress?

Long term residents may be aware that every so often, a general call is made, to rezone Kennington tube station from Zone 2 to Zone 1.  There are various reasons proposed for this:

a.  Geographically, it makes sense.  Vauxhall (currently zone 1) is further south than Kennington, although the traditional tube map gives the impression that this is not the case.

Once you view the proportional tube map, you can immediately see that based on geography alone, there is no reason that Kennington should ever have been placed in Zone 2:

b.  Wikipedia already states that journeys from National Rail stations to Kennington or Oval, via Waterloo are charged on the assumption that both Kennington and Oval are Zone 1 stations.  Clearly, National Rail don't consider it fair to assume that either Kennington or Oval are in Zone 2.  Why is that?

c.  Zone 1, south of the Thames, is a much smaller zone than zone 1 north of the Thames.  This is because the tube map assumes its centre around Tottenham Court Road.  If the centre were instead assumed to be the river, much of the area that counts as Zone 2, south of the river, would fall into zone 1.  Also, Kennington is considered central enough to make it worth including in part of it in the congestion zone.  The entirety of the rest of the Congestion zone is in Zone 1.

Happily, SE11 residents, works and commuters have Cllr Caroline Pidgeon's office on their side.

Back in April 2008, when making election pledges, Caroline stated that, if elected as a GLA candidate, she would:

"also work to secure a pier at Vauxhall Cross with a river bus to take pressure off the tube and rail networks, ensuring we use river transport more. I will also continue to press TfL to rezone Kennington Tube Station so it is a boundary 1/2 station and to be more responsive to local needs."

On the Vauxhall Lib Dem blog, in February this year, she stated, "It is simply wrong that Kennington Tube Station is in Zone 2 when it is clearly central London. We will continue to make representations to the Mayor of London which will make travelling cheaper for local residents"

I can't actually imagine that the Mayor will grant these requests (especially not in these difficult economic times), but I do think it's important to note that petitions are being made on the matter.
---

Edit:  What I love about Twitter is how quickly you can generate a response.  LambethLibDems have helpfully pointed me to questions from a meeting of Southwark Council Assembly (I think) on 28th January 2009, when Cllr Pidgeon was tabled to ask as follows:

"5. QUESTION TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL FROM COUNCILLOR CAROLINE
PIDGEON

In the light of the recent increases in tube fares, can the leader reaffirm his commitment to the rezoning of Bermondsey and Kennington tube stations, which would result in significant savings for Southwark residents, and will he write to the Mayor of London urging him to consider this option?"

--
Edit: Additionally,  on 28/1/2009 at a different meeting (is it just coincidental they're on the same day?), Cllr Pidgeon asked the Mayor two questions:

"In any review of the fare zone boundaries you may be contemplating, will you examine the case for moving Bermondsey and Kennington so that they become boundary zone 1/2 stations?" and "Are you planning a review of the fare zone boundaries for Greater London, and if so, when will you be able to report its results?"

Boris' responded (my highlights):
"London TravelWatch have identified a number of stations on the boundary of Greater London, including Epsom and Potters Bar which they believe could appropriately be included in the zonal area...
...In addition, the recent meeting between Kulveer Ranger, my Director of Transport Policy with the local MP, Ed Davey, he confirmed my strong support for this proposal to rezone Kingston and Surbiton stations. I understand that Ed is now raising the issue with South West Trains who are the primary decision makers on this.

I do not anticipate a further general review of station zoning within the London area. To maintain TfL’s revenue the losers and gainers from such a review would have to balance. This approach would be deeply unpopular with the losers in the present financial climate. However, Transport for London is always willing to consider any specific proposals for local changes on their merits."

Thanks also to edwinloo for helping me track this down. Obviously, I spend a fair amount of time Googling, but I can't always locate good results, so being given the links is very useful.
---

I guess that answers the question though.  Boris Johnson, as usual, considers only "the losers" of North London and not "the gainers" of South London.  So, erm, Ken Livingstone for Mayor anybody? ;-)

Accident in Vauxhall this morning

I saw tweets this morning re. an accident in Vauxhall, and have had a few people googling for further details.  From what I can ascertain, there was an accident at around 8.30am this morning, involving a motorcycle, on Parry Street, between South Lambeth Road and Wandsworth Road.

This blog always get extra hits after road accidents or stabbings... Not sure if this is through concern or curiosity.  Needless to say, since I'm not based in SE11 during the day (sadly), I haven't any further info.  I hope the motorcyclist is ok.

8 Albert Embankment - planning application submitted - councillors already oppose

If you need some background, or were unable to attend the exhibition re. 8 Albert Embankment (and associated land), you can view the history and photos, courtesy of this blog, here.  This will be a huge riverfront development, and if you've taken no interest in local planning matters before now, this is the one to focus on, bearing in mind its impact on SE11 (it's on the SE1 boundary, but will affect residents further south too).


I nearly fell off my chair in shock last night as I received a forward from Cllr Steven Morgan[1] about 8 Albert Embankment.  The shock was caused by the fact that the Princes ward councillors have said that they plan to oppose the planning permission request already, even prior to hearing community feedback!  Why might this be?

"As your local councillors we shall be objecting to the plans as they currently stand. We find that we cannot support an application that will provide less than 10% affordable housing when our target in Lambeth is between 40-50%. Whether you agree with us or not, please do make your own comments to the planning department so that they know what the views of the local people are before making a decision on whether they think the scheme should go ahead or not."

It seems likely that the community would support the council on the matter.  Less than 10% community housing is unacceptable, but shows that in the current economic climate, the developers are really going to bid low.  What would normally happen would be that this application would be turned down, and the developers would resubmit, suggesting 20% community housing.  The council will fall at their feet, very grateful, and when the building is halfway through development, there will be some kind of setback that will eventually mean that 12% is agreed.  Call me a cynic.  I say that we should demand a 50% quota, and let the bidding war commence.  At least we'd get 30% that way :)

Take a look at the actual planning permission request from the Developers on Lambeth Council's Planning database here.

The proposal in outline is as follows:

"Refurbishment, reconstruction and extension to the grade II fire station to provide a new fire station and associated functions for the London Fire Brigade (sui generis) on part basement and ground floors, with residential (class C3) above, including demolition of the communication mobilising centre. Demolition of the brigade workshop/office buildings to the rear and construction of 7 new buildings ranging in height from 5 to 16 storeys for mixed use purposes, comprising residential (class C3); business (class B1) to include offices and studio workshops; shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, and drinking establishments (class A1, A2, A3, A4) and ancillary facilities. Refurbishment and internal alterations to the grade II listed drill tower associated with the new fire station. Construction of basements to provide servicing, parking, energy centre, plant and storage. creation of areas of open space, and alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian access and highway arrangements within and around the site. To provide a total of 360 residential units, 7,214sqm of commercial floorspace and 181 parking spaces including a 6 storey building on the corner of Black Prince Road and Newport Street.


This application is a departure from the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (August 2007)."

Now, don't be too shocked, but actually (subject to seeing the drawings), I think that this is quite a good preliminary proposal summary.  I'm impressed that they've limited the tallest building to 16 storeys (bearing in mind that 81 Black Prince Road will have 23).  I like the idea of mixed height buildings and particularly mixed use development.  I think it will be great to have some offices, shops, restaurants etc. along that stretch of the river (that portion of the South Bank is quite impoverished in terms of facilities, and so people tend not to visit).  I think that good eating/drinking establishments could rejuvenate and complement the existing pubs and options currently on Black Prince Road and Albert Embankment.  Also, it seems to me that 360 residential units is ambitious, but not foolish.  So, if they get knocked back on this attempt for low provision of community housing, I don't see any reason not to permit the development once the council have obtained their allocation.  This is, of course, subject to viewing the building drawings...  If it is going to look hideous or they've neglected to provide sufficient green space, I might change my mind...

I'm struggling, at the moment, to view all six pages of plans on the Lambeth planning database.  Quite frankly, the database technology that Lambeth are using is not really sufficient to view significant numbers of documents.  During the day, it's so slow as to be useless.  As soon as I can get some pictures, I'll paste them here, so that we can an idea of how the thing might look.

My only query, and I wonder if one of the developers or readers of the blog might be able to answer is the line on the proposal which states, "This application is a departure from the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (August 2007)."  Does anybody know why?  I know Cllr Harrison reads the blog, so perhaps he might be able to fill us in with how the application is a departure from the UDP and in what way?  It might be a minor matter, but it seems an interesting statement.

One point that I will continue to keep making, until people are really sick of it, is that this is yet another building that is likely to raise the number of commuters using Vauxhall Station, and, as yet, we have no guarantee that anybody will fund the enlargement of the tube station or additional tube provision.  That is all.
[1](I ought to say in passing that Cllr Steve Morgan is quite good at sending timely emails to the community on planning matters...)

New Covent Garden Market - the procurement begins - is it premature?

I'm not too sure about the timing of the announcement, given that the Mayor's Nine Elm Plan has had its deadline response extended until the end of this month (and therefore, the consultation is still technically under way), but the FT is reporting that Jonas Deloitte are already working on the procurement of a development partner, starting this week.

I realise that the New Covent Garden already finished their consultation, so I am perhaps wrong in thinking that, whilst the Mayor's plan is still being consulted on, the NCG people are rather premature.  However, given the current comprehensive objections/suggestions that I know will arise from the Mayor's consultation, I'd have expected them to wait until all of the responses had been submitted. 

What happens if an objection to the Mayor's plan is significant enough to affect the NCG Market?  Wouldn't the developers need to be aware of that before they begin bidding?

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

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

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

Kennington Association Bazaar (and Million Women Rise march)

Kennington Association Bazaar (11am - 1pm, St Anselm's Church Hall
Please see yesterday's post on the Kennington Association blog for advanced notice of one of their fundraising bazaars on Saturday. The bazaar will be held from 11:00 to 13:00 on the 6th March at St Anselm’s Church Hall.


If you have items that you want to give away to raise funds for the Kennington Association (for local projects), you'll need to bring the items to the Church Hall on Friday evening from 18:00-20:00 or before the bazaar begins on the Saturday itself.  If you currently have a house full of saleable clutter, the Kennington Association is a worthwhile cause (their costs are low and they are entirely staffed by volunteers) and since there are no charity shops in Kennington, it's a greener option than driving it all to Walworth Road.


Million Women Rise March (Meet 12pm, Park Lane)
Somewhat off topic (and non-SE11), I know, but it's the third (I think) Million Women Rise march on Saturday.  The march is a gathering of diverse individual women, and their representatives from the Voluntary/Community sector. It's a demonstration against continued male violence enacted against women worldwide. The march is open to women and children only.


The crowd attending the march has been growing in size and strength from year to year, but it's nowhere near the size it should be. Male violence against women is a matter that I feel needs to be denounced strongly, and having marched for the last two years, I'll be going this year too. I would ask you to consider attending for women who are unable to speak out.  If you had considered attending, but want somebody to accompany you, please drop me an email on: lurkingaboutse11@gmail.com and we can arrange something.

Black Prince pub and a visit to the Cinema Museum

I had a spiffingly SE11-esque day on Sunday...

First, we went to lunch at the Black Prince pub (6 Black Prince Road). I heard that it had been refurbished back in December, and the effort appears to have paid off. The interior is lovely, all dark wood, with two fires at either end of the pub. Service was impeccable and all of the bar staff were really friendly. There appears to be a variety of beers on tap. Food was mid-range (think prices similar to The Bear, Camberwell), but good. We ordered two roast dinners (I strongly recommend the cheese/quince tart veggie option), and our only foodie complaint is that the veg. were rather al dente. However, I'm aware that that's something of a fashion statement at the moment so I'm inclined to charitably assume that they weren't just undercooked. I noticed a number of nice touches eg. pie evening on Tuesdays at more than reasonable prices. Mmmm. Pie. I love pie. We will definitely be back for pie night.

Anyhow, the Black Prince is a really lovely pub (I have no connection), and it's definitely cheaper and quieter that The White Hart, and has none of the "ick" of the Dog House. My one issue with the whole experience is actually my fault. The pub markets itself (even on the outside) as a "live sports" venue, which I failed to notice. But even with that knowledge, I feel that there's a slight clash of aims. In order to satisfy both the patrons who are eating, and those who are there for the sport, the TVs show the football without volume and pleasant classical music plays in the background (somewhat frustrating for fans, you might think). Even with that huge concession, it felt a little bit uncomfortable to be surrounded by cheering football fans when trying to eat a roast dinner! My advice to diners is to try and sit in the cove at the other end of the pub, away from the screens. I couldn't quite decide whether the pub was aiming for the monied gay folk of SE11 or trying to be a kind of "local" for football fans (not that these two groups need be different, mind). I'm not convinced that it manage to pull off either as well as it should, but I will definitely be back, and I recommend it to readers!

The second part of the afternoon was spent visiting The Cinema Museum in Duggard Way. I'd never been before, and wanted to go and check it out, especially as it's currently in danger. It appears the site has been bought by a property developer, who will probably eventually want to turn it into flats. On the one hand, I have some sympathy for their plight, but on the other hand, the museum does come over as a kind of private collection for a select few individuals. It's rarely open to the public, but since they were holding a fund raiser at the weekend, it seemed worth popping in. I'm glad I did. The building that houses the collection is the administration wing of the old Lambeth Workhouse, and it's an exquisite building. I've taken a few photos so you can see what I mean (apologies for quality, but they were taken on my mobile phone camera as I forgot the other one).

The upstairs room is wonderfully light because of large windows on all 3 sides:



The Chaplin figure fits the space perfectly:



Some of the museum memorabilia:





Posters for sale:




This item particularly caught my eye.  Although it was taken on the Old Kent Road, it captured a particular era in London when small (though dangerous) cinemas could be opened up in shop fronts.  Made me feel quite nostalgic for a time I never knew...

There are better photos on The Cinema museum's website here and here.

According to their website, the Cinema Museum are looking to move once again (and indeed open the collection to the public) and are considering venues...

St Anselm's Church Project - an exciting adventure or a questionable risk?

I'm aware that I'm a month or so late with this one, but it has taken a while to get hold of the video files.  St Anselm's Church (in the heart of Kennington, SE11) offered a short consultation to local residents in January about the possibility of turning the church into a large local hub that would contain a variety of extra organisations, whilst still retaining space for the church.

I've finally obtained the videos, the first, a walkthrough of the proposed site, and the second, a kind of local commentary on the project.





The proposal is that the site would be developed so that it could contain several organisations:

1.  Into University - Organisation that works with local young people to encourage them in their studies.  It targets those who might not otherwise consider higher education or know how to access it.

2.  A restaurant and deli, to be staffed by ex-offenders, who would receive training and accommodation on the site.

3.  Small offices for local businesses that could offer basic facilities and would be hired out for an initially low rent to both those who had developed business plans from inside prison, and to local disadvantaged people who wanted to start an enterprise that could not otherwise afford the space.

4.  The Pelican Nursery - they are already on site, but their presence would complement the work being performed by the local organisations, and they offer a number of subsidised spaces.

5.  Community Hall - This would replace the Centenary Hall, which is in Cottington Street.

6.  Church - the top of the building would still contain a church, suitable for several hundred people.  Also, there would be space for a separate lady chapel and a prayer garden

7.  Accomodation - for ex offenders, ex-offender's live-in supervisor, assistant priest and caretaker

I'm generally in favour of the project.  I know there have been some mutterings about ex-offenders being accommodated on site, but actually I tend to think that the difference with this project is that there will be good supervision and training on offer as well.  I understand that it would be supervised accommodation, rather than people just left to their own devices.  I'd also hope that the into-university and young offender projects would benefit and offer a renewed lease of life to the church building.  It would certainly offer a kind of "centre" to Kennington where the community and the church could meet, with restaurant, deli etc. and there's nothing else like it around here.  Certainly, the project promises to be hugely more viable and uplifting than a more questionable unsupervised arrangement, such as the alcohol drop-in centre, currently disliked by residents on Brook Drive.

Anyhow, that's my take... But, the person that put together the video etc. has said that they would welcome comments from blog readers, and local people, so that they have information that they can feed back and further develop plans for the site...

Free chipping for cats and dogs on Thurs 25th February in Kennington

This one nearly slipped under the radar.  I know that Lambeth Living aren't able to resolve your service charge queries, but it appears they're better with pets.

According to a Gumtree ad,  Lambeth Living and RSPCA are offering a free microchipping event for dogs and cats at the North Lambeth Area Housing Office on Thursday 25th Feb (this week), from 16:00 - 18:00.  No appointment is required.

North Lambeth Area Housing Office is at 91 Kennington Lane, SE11 4HR

The ad. doesn't say that you need to be living in Lambeth Living accommodation.  It appears that anybody can bring their dogs / cats along.

Event is supported by Lambeth Council Environmental Services.

Bendy bus accident (not in SE11)

I decided to take a little jaunt away from SE11 to visit the British Museum today, and on the way, I encountered a bendy bus accident.  Bendy bus incidents (with pedestrians, cyclists, other vehicles etc.) occur at a much higher frequency than ordinary bus incidents, but I doubt that anybody much notices them unless people are killed or  injured.   Since I blogged about a bendy bus incident involving a bollard some time ago at Vauxhall station, (although I never elicited any further details), I've been getting a number of hits on the matter, so I thought I'd satisfy the very few readers that arrive at the blog looking for bendy bus accidents!

I figure that this was probably 90% the fault of the badly / illegally (I think) parked car, but it just goes to show why bendy buses are somewhat problematic vehicles, given various tight corners in London.  I don't know how the  driver/police recovered the situation, since I couldn't see any way the bus could go forward or backwards...  At the back, the bus was utterly jammed against the silver car.  In front of the bus (you can't see this) was a correctly parked motorbike and various other cars.  Even if the cars at the front could have been moved, I couldn't see how the bus could be unjammed without further damage to the silver car.

I've blurred the face of the guy at the back, in case he was involved in any way.  The other thing I didn't quite manage to photograph was the policeman who arrived at the incident wearing a machine gun!

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.]

Added China Walk TRA to the map and a few blog changes

At the suggestion of one reader, I've added China Walk Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) to the map at the top right corner, very near the boundary of SE11. Apparently, they have a community resource, the Chandler Community Hall (and very smart it looks to), which is available for hire. They charge between £15-£25 per hour, depending on what type of group you are. Here's a pic, and see their website for more details:

I'll also add VGERTA, but not sure where they're based in order to put the pin in the correct place. Can anybody advise whether VGERTA have a headquarters?  Does anybody else know of (or belong to) any other TRAs that they might want me to link to the blog or add to the map?

Eagle eyed blog watchers who are not reading through an RSS reader will notice that I've been making a few changes to the blog. It's my eventual aim to move from Blogspot to Wordpress, but I'm terrified of losing my Google positioning as it has taken ages to get to this stage, so in the meantime, I'm just making use of various blogspot features to add bits and pieces.  I've added user comments to the main page, as some of these are lengthy and worth reading for their own sakes.  I've written a Yahoo Pipes mashup that should gather details of everything currently for sale in Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall, SE11 and SW8 on Gumtree, which might be useful if you'd buy items that are available locally (it does seem to change very frequently though, since the Gumtree RSS feed only gives access to 100 items).  The link to that is under "Kennington and SE11 items for sale" at the top of the blog.  I've also swapped the embedded map with a picture of a clickable image which will take you through to the Google map, so that the main site doesn't take so long to load.