London Cycle Hire (Barclays) aka Boris Bikes in SE11

SE11 is fortunate enough to contain 9 Barclays Cycle Hire docking stations.  I haven't actually seen them all yet, so I'd appreciate it if readers could confirm whether or not they exist and have bikes at them and I'll add a  "confirmed" tag next to them.  For those of you who like trivia, the Kennington Road Post Office docking station is the southernmost cycle docking point in London (as things stand).  I'm sure there'll continue to be calls to expand the scheme further south to Stockwell, Clapham and Brixton, since coverage is rather sparse south of the river.

SE11 Docking Stations [all now Confirmed operational]:


Kennington Road Post Office (capacity: 18 bikes)
Kennington Lane Rail Bridge (capacity: 19 bikes)
Lollard Street (capacity: 25 bikes)
Kennington Lane Tesco (capacity: 14 bikes)
Kennington Cross, (top of) Sancroft Street (capacity: 16 bikes)
Sancroft Street (capacity: 24 bikes)
Black Prince Road (capacity: 19 bikes)
Cotton Gardens Estate (Kennington Lane) (capacity: 16 bikes)
Walnut Tree Walk (just off of Kennington Road) (capacity: 16 bikes)

Additionally, the SE11 area benefits (or perhaps I should say, /will/ benefit) from another 6 nearby docking stations:

Docking Stations Near SE11

Vauxhall Cross (Pret a Manager) (capacity: 17 bikes) (Trivia: it's SW8's sole docking station) [Confirmed Operational]
Albert Embankment, SE1 (capacity: 24 bikes) [Confirmed Operational]
Fire Brigade Pier, SE1 (capacity: 17 bikes).  [Confirmed as non-existent]
Lambeth Road, SE1 (Near Garden Museum) (capacity: 18 bikes).  [Confirmed Operational]
Kennington Road, SE1 (Imperial War Museum) (capacity: 36 bikes) [Confirmed Operational]
Hampton Street, SE1 (just off of Newington Butts) (capacity: 21 bikes) [Confirmed Operational]

Here's a photo of the Kennington Road Post Office docking station at about 8.45am this morning.  I was delighted to find that it still contained bikes, but not so thrilled that my key (despite activation) appeared not to work to remove them from the docking point.  I watched another chap try in vain to insert the key and get a green light, but neither of us were in luck this morning (which might explain why plenty of bikes were still available).  I was told that my key might be faulty, but I tried again nearer to my workplace, and attained a green light.  Unfortunately, I was unable to remove the bike from the stand, but I'm told I might not be tugging hard enough!

Owner of Queen Anne pub, Denise D'Courtenay, murdered in Dominican Republic

There was an article in The Sun this morning that noted that Denise D'Courtenay, the owner of the Queen Anne (strip) pub, in Vauxhall (it's the bright orange one on Vauxhall Walk) was murdered whilst taking her annual holiday in the Dominican Republic.  According to the Mail, her body was found a week after she went missing.  Her death is particularly tragic since she was due to retire next month.

According to the Sun, the pub was a haunt for "footballers, soap stars and rappers", which is somewhat surprising since I've always thought it looked a little intimidating from the outside (that's probably always the case when it's somebody else's local).  Anyhow, our area being what it is, I'm sure Denise was well known and loved by the patrons of the pub and other business owners.  Please feel free to leave any memories of Denise or the pub in the comments section.

Also, see August 2010 article re. the pub turning into the Tea house theatre, and there's a photo of the sign outside (thanks Twitter) that indicates it will re-open in April 2011.

Number of Lambeth residents affected by government's new housing cap

Back in June, I asked how many Lambeth residents would be affected by the rate cap introduced by George Osborne in the June 2010 budget.  I speculated that Lambeth would likely be affected by additional accommodation-seeking in-comers who could no longer afford Westerminster or Kensington and Chelsea.  I predicted that there would not be a mass exodus of families who received benefit over and above the new housing caps, but I was unsure, so I submitted a Freedom of Information request here.

And now the data is in... In Week 15 of 2010/2011, Lambeth were renting 24,378 properties to members of the public.  This figure does not include properties rented by tenants from private landlords paid for with housing benefits.

The number of Lambeth council households who are renting property from Lambeth Council or an affiliated Housing association or who are private tenants who claim Housing benefit over the amount of the George Osborne cap are as follows:

94 properties for 0-1 bedrooms where rent over £230
12 properties for 2 bedrooms where rent over £290
5 properties for 3 bedrooms over £340
39 properties for 4 bedrooms where rent over £400

That totals 150 households. Unfortunately, I can't provide a percentage of total Lambeth households affected because the figures for the rent exceeding the new cap include households renting privately from non-Lambeth landlords, but Lambeth haven't provided me with the number of households renting privately, only those who rent public housing. In any case, presuming that the 150 includes everybody renting privately (which has been confirmed to me in correspondence following the Freedom of Information request), it seems that the numbers of Lambeth residents affected by the cap are extremely low, which is good news. (I'm assuming that some of the people that receive more than the cap will be on the cusp eg. receiving £235 per week for a 0-1 bedroom property).

Kylun Vauxhall Island Site - Planning Application Submitted

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

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

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

Kennington Schools - Ofsted reports and meeting for concerned parents

I've been emailed a flyer which suggests that parents in Kennington are concerned that two local primary schools are in "special measures" and would like to meet to discuss their options.  Click the poster to view a larger copy to discover where/when the meeting takes place:

Being placed in special measures means that Ofsted judge that a school does not provide an acceptable level of education and lacks the leadership capacity to improve matters.  The local schools that have been / were placed under special measures are Henry Fawcett Primary School and Vauxhall Primary School (see here for large .zip file of the data as at 31st March 2010 from Ofsted).  Note that as of 9th/10th June 2010 (date of last inspection), Henry Fawcett is deemed no longer to be in special measures.  Therefore, the poster above is somewhat misleading.

I cannot imagine how it must feel to teach or lead a school placed in special measures so I really hope that the parents at those two schools are rallying together to be as supportive of the staff as they can.  It would be very interesting to see if the wider Kennington and Vauxhall community could think of ways to offer their talents to the schools that do not make the grade that would give the children at those schools a boost, but I'm not altogether inclined to think that Londoners are necessarily so community minded.  Whilst being placed in special measures is something of an indictment on a school, I do wonder whether the school intake at both of the schools that were originally placed in special measures comprises of a larger number of children who speak English as a second language, and who are entitled to free school meals (indicating poverty).  Note that the most recent Henry Fawcett Ofsted report states "Attendance has risen, but not at a pace that matches the improvements in other areas, despite the school's strenuous efforts." which rather implies that the staff are working with a set of parents who don't place a high value on education and potentially have lower aspirations for their children.

As far as I know, there are seven primary schools in SE11 and Ofsted rate schools Overall effectiveness with the grades Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory and Inadequate.  I've provided links to all of the Ofsted reports so that anybody interested can analyse further:

Archbishop Sumner (C of E) - 2009 Ofsted Report judged school as Outstanding
Charlotte Sharman - 2009 Ofsted Report judged school as Satisfactory
Henry Fawcett - 2010 Ofsted Report judged school as Satisfactory
St Anne's Catholic Primary School (RC) - 2008 Ofsted Report judged school as Good
St Mark's (C of E) - 2008 Ofsted Report judged school as Good
Vauxhall Primary School  - 2010 Ofsted Report judged school as Good
Walnut Tree Walk Primary School - 2010 Ofsted Report judged school as Good

I'm not surprised that having two of seven schools in special measures (or recently placed as such) is causing consternation amongst local parents.  If you're not religious and don't wish to enter into attending church for the sake of your child's education, you have a choice of only four schools, two of which are or have recently been in special measures and a third of which is judged only as satisfactory.  This, I imagine, puts considerable pressure on places at Walnut Tree Walk.

Lansdowne Way Stabbing (July 2010)

I've just spotted a BBC Tweet which suggests there's been a stabbing on Lansdowne Way, Kennington.  Geographically, Lansdowne Way should be classified as Stockwell (or the boundaries of Oval) since it's a bit further south in Lambeth.  The 18 year old male in question has life threatening injuries.  There's a BBC Press Release here.

This has got to stop.  I really really hope that the man in question recovers.

I assume Stockwell News will report further as news becomes available.  Sadly, it appears that there was a stabbing just last year (June 2009) in Lansdowne Way June too.

More on 216 Kennington Road (likely to be a Tesco)

I received a letter at the end of June, advising that Gallagher are attempting to vary a condition (one of opening hours) for the ground floor level on 216 Kennington Road (likely to be a Tesco Metro).

Gallaher are applying to change the opening hours from 07:00am - 09:00pm (Monday to Friday) to 07:00am - 11:00pm (Monday to Friday).

If you agree, disagree or want to comment, you can email lambethplanning@lambeth.gov.uk quoting reference: 10/02164/FUL

The deadline is 20th July 2010.

Oval Farmers Market and Future Plans for St Mark's churchyard

I skipped happily along to Oval Market this week to drink the apple juice, choose the cakes and have a crepe, so I was able to photograph the boards displaying the plans for Oval Market / St Mark's graveyard.  The new initiative appears to have been developed as a result of dicussions between Lambeth Council and the Oval Partnership.  I apologise for the quality of the shots.  They were taken on the phone camera which isn't a patch on a standard camera, and there was also a lot of pushing and shoving with lots of people trying to view the boards, so two of the photos have emerged in a pinkish hue.  Still, it's better that nothing, right?

The boards provide a little history of St Mark's Church, and the local area. Kennington Park Road, for example, still follows the old Roman route, originally named Stane Street and St Mark's was built on the site of the gallows of Kennington Common. (It looks as though the board writers cadged most of the history from the St Mark's website). In the past, I had heard it said that the burial ground was still Common land (hence being allowed to be used for the Saturday market and as a local cut-through). However, a little more digging has yielded the information that common rights over /both/ burial ground and church were extinguished by an Act of Parliament when the church was built. The church had to be conveyed from the Duchy (to whom it never belonged, on account of it being common land) across to the Church Commissioners by an Act of Parliament, which left it in the slightly odd situation that it was built, prior to gaining permission for it to be put in place!  In a twist of fate, however, the responsbiblity for management of the burial ground was handed back to Lambeth Council in 1950, so it has essentially become common land (or at least, shared space) once again.

The gist of the consultation was that the Churchyard needs some improvement on the basis that the paths are worn and become slippery, the playground requires upgrading, some of the trees are in poor health and a number of the tombstones in the grounds have been displaced and collapsed.  Additionally, there are no facilities for the use of stall-holders in the market.  The market management also wish to ensure that the market stalls are placed to ensure that the grass in the yard is not damaged.

There are two development options. 

The first is a simple plan to improve the paving around the memorial, stop people parking on the grass, replace and widen the path, install new drainage, add benches, repair the railings, plants some new trees, remove diseased trees, add a "natural play area", refurbish the playground,  add some kind of surface to reduce wear and tear under the market stalls, add electricity points for the market stalls, and install new lighting.

The second option includes all of the improvements contained in the first, but advocates the addition of an Oval shaped piece of land (which appears to be paved and is pictured with a detachable canopy) that could be used for the market as well as providing a dedicated space for other community events).

Neither option looks to be detrimental, unless one is concerned by the removal of grass that would be necessitated were option two to be adopted.

Oval Farmers Market Consultation tomorrow (3rd July)

As you can see from the poster below, there's a consultation tomorrow from 10am at Oval Farmer's Market about how the market and the churchyard could be improved.  

I can't say enough to recommend this market and all of the stallholders.  It's fantastic to have people that travel up to London each week and offer their wares.  It's great to be able to buy food straight from the farmers that grow it and the bakers that bake it, and the churchyard is a completely free public space to sit in the sun and chat to friends. 

Part-ownership of a spaceship, going carbon negative and recycling on Lambeth housing estates

The consensus is that prices are rising once again in London, such that owning a property is beyond the reach of many citizens.  Help, however, is at hand in the form of a part-ownership eco-spaceship.  Head over to the Beaconsfield Gallery (22 Newport Street, SE11) where an installation, exploring the contradictions and difficulties of building a utopia, will be constructed in the form of  a Spaceship Earth eco-structure.  You can buy a slice at a rather reasonable £1 per share, but it's unclear exactly what you'll get for your money!  

The Beaconsfield spaceship project is collaborative, and the artists require donations of works relating to utopias.  In addition, you can take a picture of yourself outside your house with lots of unwanted goods, and email it to the organisers.  There is a whole host of free workshops on offer, but participants are encouraged to bring something (or offer a service) in exchange for attendance.

Events which still have to take place are as follows (info lifted from the Spaceship Earth project on the Beaconsfield website).  I'm wondering about attending the vegan chocolate one on Sunday!

Thursday 1 July 6-8 pm
Creative Writing Workshop with Sarah Butler
Saturday 3 July 2-4 pm
Immigration Law for Sale? with Barry O’Leary and Tim Barnden
Sunday 4 July 2-4 pm
Raw Chocolate Demo with Laura Coxeter
Tuesday 6 - Thursday 8 July 11-5 pm
Eco-Build: Rammed Earth with Mark Pavey and friends
Friday 9 - Sunday 11 July 11-5 pm
Eco-Build: Living Roof with Mark Pavey and friends


On a related note, there is an interesting project that seems to be taking place within SE11 at the Bowling Green Street pub (yup, the one that was meant to be turned into housing, but got turned down by Lambeth Council).  Some of the people currently based(?) there are advocating the possibility of living a carbon negative lifestyle, in which communities learn to be self-sufficient.  The group advocate the change of planning laws to enable the building of Eco-villages (I'm unclear about how this would work in densely populated Lambeth) and also put forward some ideas about how to improve the quality of soil (and thus increase its capacity for food growth) through a method called Biochar.  I'm afraid it's all rather unwieldy to go into here, but they have a GrowUp website that provides further info.  Apparently, they're willing to explain it all in the form of an exhibition, where films and music will illustrate what they're talking about, and it's on every Thursday.   Might be worth checking their website first as it looks a little adhoc.

Finally, on a more practical note, Lambeth Council are embarking on a bid to the London Waste and Recycling Foundation.  They need some ideas and proposals for various projects to run locally.  If successful, I think they'd be allotted some money to encourage additional recycling on Lambeth council housing estates.  I believe we discussed this matter here about a year ago, when one commentator wrote insightfully that he thought residents on local estates would be encouraged to recycle more effectively were better signage provided on the recycling bins.  I wonder whether, with many residents not having English as a first language, some investment should go into providing literature in a number of different languages.  Unfortunately... the one type of project that this particular bid does not support is that which relates to communications, "this includes doorstepping, leafleting, community outreach, literature", which leaves the Council requesting proposals for:


* Small-scale composting
* New or improved bin chambers
* Dropped kerbs that will enable the recycling provision to be increased or improved
* Incentive schemes
* Chute conversions (to recycling, where there are two chutes side by side)


Do readers have any ideas along these lines for local estates in the area?  Do you live on or have friends who live on local estates that might benefit from these types of changes?  I'm not entirely sure how I've come to be consulted on such matters, but I'm really impressed by Lambeth Council's recycling commitment, so I think it's well worth giving them input where possible.

St Anselm's Project Plans and feedback from the Consultation Event

I attended the St Anselm's Project re-consultation evening yesterday (it was worth it for the samosas alone).  Last year, I posted about the St Anselm's redevelopment (with video) here, and explained why the Duchy's desire to join the project has lead to a re-consultation here.  Happily, the new plans do not involve 150 metre towers in the heart of Kennington so there's not really anything to dislike.  I originally blogged quite favourably about this project, even despite the fact that the proposed  facade would have appeared rather bulky from Kennington Road.  My view was (and is) that the regeneration project would enable the church to be a building enjoyed by the wider community in the heart of Kennington, rather than a building that is locked for much of the week).

Anyhow, the re-consultation does not contain anything particularly offensive, but seems to address the fact that Lambeth Council weren't keen on the original drawings.  It's difficult to detect much difference between some of the new drawings, and the arguments appear to be all about height.  Option 1 is the original plan, and the rest are ideas that have been redeveloped in consultation with the Duchy.  The plans (see below) don't give detail on the finished look, but whatever the architects do is likely to be in an style approved  by Prince Charles and is unlikely to involve glass and metal.  The photos below are quite illuminating, and provide a little history about how some of the post-war buildings of Stable's Way don't do much for the street.  The SE11_lurker tends to agree with Prince Charles on the matter of classical architecture, so doesn't really mind which of the new drawings are chosen for the project.

The re-consultation seemed to be well-attended, but I know that not everybody can get along to these events, so the architects have kindly emailed me the plans so that everybody else can see what is proposed.  I've turned the .pdf info .jpgs for easier viewing.  At the top, there's a  consultation form, which can be filled in and returned to Pat Evemy whose email address is:

St Peter's Vauxhall - Summer Arts Festival - June 27th - July 11th 2010

I probably don't do enough arts coverage on this blog.  There are heaps of art galleries and two theatres within SE11, and I always have good intentions to go and watch, hear and learn, but there are always pubs to drink in, people to see and meetings to attend.  In any case, I doubt that I'd make a good critic, since I can't tell good art from bad, and tend to think people deserve praise for making an effort!  But I do think that a 15 day Arts Festival deserves a mention, since such events usually take a great deal of organisation!

St Peter's Church, Vauxhall (part of North Lambeth Parish) is holding an Arts event from June 27th - July 11th, featuring everything from the brass band of Archbishop Sumner School (Monday 5th) to a "Glyndebourne picnic" where you can relax, listen to opera, eat a picnic and enjoy the interior of St Peter's (Saturday 3rd).  (It's a beautiful church, and really deserves a separate post about its history and architecture.)  I quite like the sound of the "Joy of Sound","bring an instrument, regardless of ability" event (Friday 3rd and 10th),  but unfortunately, it's held during office hours!

Here's the leaflet for more info (click images to enlarge):

Vauxhall Fete 2010 Photographs

I know I'm a week or so late with these pictures of Vauxhall Fete, but SE11 is very busy in the summer months.  I know that some of the shots lack people (and it was well attended), but I'm always worried that people will get shouty if I accidentally snap their toddler!

A particularly enthusiastic band:

A police incident in Vauxhall:

The sign on the side says, "Vauxhall London SW8":

Fiery red spiky plants:

Go karting, large slide and the Fire Brigade:

A particularly tropical-looking photo of Vauxhall Park:

More red spiky plant:

Standing above the crowd:

Donkey riding in the Park:

Donkey resting:

Believe it or not, despite the heat, this flower pot was really alive

(notice the hole on the side):

Summer is never really here until somebody splats the rat:

I'm afraid I didn't make it to the North Lambeth Parish Fete at the weekend  (a shame, as it's always fabulous).  There are, I suppose, probably only so many cup cakes and egg sandwiches that it's healthy for anybody to eat (and I'm well over that limit anyway), but I'm happy to add photos to the blog (feel free to email), if you took any and would like to add them to the record.

The Budget 2010 by George Osborne (Will Lambeth face an influx of house hunters?)

I was going to write a post two days ago about the budget, and how it would affect folks in SE11.  And then I realised, it wouldn't, at least not in the way I had first envisaged.  The effects of certain changes are likely to be very subtle.

Obviously, we'll all be hit by the rise in VAT to 20%.  Although it's worth noting that the charity, Save the Children, say "Poor families currently spend more of their disposable income on VAT than richer families, with the poorest 10% spending 14% versus 5% for the richest." so we won't all be hit in the same way.  But in general, the cost of household goods will rise.

My real concern was related to social housing in Lambeth.  The Local Housing Allowance is due to be capped (from 2011) so that those who rent one bedroom properties can claim a maxiumum of £230 per week and those that rent four (or more) bedroom properties can claim a maximum of £400.  I wondered whether there'd by a mass exodus from Lambeth as single people and families could not afford to rent subsidised housing whilst claiming housing benefit.  I was going to write an article on how it would effectively push people out of Lambeth, but then I realised it probably wouldn't.

The scandal is that very few local authorities are able to build social housing to keep up with the demand.  Of course, that I describe it as a "scandal" is already to state a political view.  The question of social housing is one that will inevitably become more greatly politicised due to shortages, with many people asking why some families should receive council / housing authority subsidised housing, whilst others have to pay market rates.  But historically Lambeth has always had and built a huge amount of social housing.  It seems (I think) that the current problem relates to demand (ie. the council list currently stands at 20,000) and not the cost of housing.

A little research of the Lambeth properties on the council list (for those with enough points to be able to bid for them) reveals that even the larger properties in Brixton (4 beds) and Oval (5 beds) are only marketed by the council at £120.92 per week and £174.29 per week respectively.  Oval is in a more northern section of Lambeth (and I'm presuming that the northernmost properties will be more expensive than those elsewhere), so whilst I accept that the Guardian's Jenny Jones may be correct when she asserts "Lambeth families can get up to £430pw", I really do have to wonder whether they're not perhaps living in 9 bedroom houses somewhere.  I doubt there are that many of them in any case.  I also looked into one bedroom properties to see if the £230 cap would present a problem for local people, but even there, it seems it's possible to rent a 1 bedroom property in Lambeth, from the council, at between £90 per week and £137 per week.  Obviously, I might be missing something.  Perhaps the properties currently available are really cheap flats in a bad state of repair, but the website showed a geographical spread of 1 bedroom properties, so I doubt that that is genuinely the case. 

What I perhaps have not accounted for is the number of private landlords who let propeties at high rents whose tenants then claim their money back in housing benefit.  But many many landlords will not rent properties to housing benefit claimants (try telephoning a letting agent in Kennington and asking if they'll accept DSS) so I don't know how many landlords would fit into this bracket. In addition, the landlords who let through Lettings First (Lambeth Council's partnership with private landlords) are warned to expect significantly less rent than they'd receive on the private market.  But the question still stands.  Does private housing paid for by housing benefit represent a higher cost to the government than housing benefit to council tenants?  If so, by how much?  Mightn't there be a case for building more social housing in the first place?
The Guardian is suggesting that the government are trying to "export poverty" to the outer boroughs of London, but the political consequences of such a move are rather unknown.  It's alleged that Boris Johnson came to power as a result of voters in the outer boroughs being mobilised.  What would happen if traditional Labour supporters end up being cast out of inner London into the outer darkness of the outer boroughs (which are traditionally more blue)?  Nobody knows.

What is undoubtedly the case, and where I'm in greater agreement with the Guardian, is that there are other boroughs in London that do have people living in properties who likely claim housing benefit at above the new threshold limit.  (I'm guessing that there must be quite a number of such claimants in Westminster).  So the question arises about whether Lambeth won't in fact experience a mass exodus (the Guardian says people will be forced to outer and more eastern boroughs), but will experience something of an influx of house hunters?  I don't know how easy it is to swap a local authority property in one area (or move from a local authority housing waiting list) for a local authority property / housng waiting list in another area, but I'm sure we'll soon find out.

New statistics on Lambeth: CPCG Police and Community Safety 2010 (part 1)

Every couple of years, just as the local area census data starts to look old, somebody commissions a report that sheds light on current trends and produces a new fascinating set of statistics.  On this occasion, it's the turn of the Community Police Consultative Group. Catriona Robertson (their project manager and report writer) has produced a superb account on the state of Lambeth community/police relations.  (Ms Robertson has her own blog and is also on Twitter).  I love statistics, (although my analysis skills are non-existent, so I'm just going to add some commentary in bold type).  I really welcome additional data about the area.  The report, Whose Shout? : Engagement on Community Safety in Lambeth, can be found here. 

From the report, I discovered that there is a State of the Borough Report (2008) which is perhaps worth examining further, and the GLA may also have produced additional figures in 2009, which help us identify who lives in the area, what they do and what opportunities are open to them.  In the mean time, I've mined the CPCG report for the following statistics, which I think you might find interesting:

* The annual turnover of population in Lambeth is 22% or 27%, if you include people who move within the borough (p5)
[This is exceedingly high, but not sure how it compares to London as a whole.]

* The population in Lambeth in 2007 was 285,580, although those registered with GPs in March 2009 was 352,762.  (p6)
[Assuming that there hasn't been a sudden rise of 68,000 residents in a year, that means that there are a lot of "hidden" folk in Lambeth.  Are these asylum seekers?  Undeclared relatives?  Folk from neighbouring boroughs who want to keep using Lambeth GPs?].

* Lambeth is the most ethnically diverse borough in London, with 52% of population beign white british, 14% being white (other), 34% being black, Asian and other. (p6). 
[It's probably worth exercising some caution here, since these figures are based on the 2001 census, and if we've got an annual turnover of 22%, I don't expect these figures to remain unchanged.  I say "hurrah" for diversity, but I'm intrigued to know whether the Borough is integrated enough, or whether some people live in unintentionally segregated groups.  I ask, on account of some recent comments on the blog, and some of the comments raised at the recent KOV meeting.]

* 60% of Lambeth is Christian, 5% Muslim, 8% other, and 29% preferred not to answer. (p6) 
[Seems to total over 100%, but nevermind.  I'd be really intrigued to know the breakdown of the 8% "other", assuming it's not Jedi or something silly.  I've a vague theory that Lambeth seems to have a higher than average number of Buddhists.  I suspect the 60% Christian figure is much higher than the national average, even once you factor out people who answer C of E by default.]

* Reliable sexual orientation data isn't available, but local surveys suggests an LGBT population of 3%-5%. (p6).  Homophobic crime rose by 46% during 2009-2010 
[Perhaps that's true of Lambeth as a whole, but my view is that Princes, Oval and parts of Stockwell wards have a significantly higher LGBT population, which I don't think is accounted for with this figure, which seems to only reflect national percentage.  The rise in homophobic crime is atrocious, but /could/ result in greater willingness to report crime.]

* Crime fell over 30% in Lambeth over seven years to 2009, although Lambeth remains a high crime area, with the third most recorded offences of all London boroughs 2008-2009. (p6) 
[I'm really suspicious of measurement of crime statistics because every few years, the police alter the definitions of certain crimes.  Also, many people still fail to report crime (especially if they're not supposed to officially be here), making this very difficult to track.  A 30% reduction, however, is probably high enough to be significant.  See here for my controversial view that knife crime is worse in North London than South London.]

* In 2009-1010, gun crime is up 33% in Lambeth and rape by 25%. (p6)
[I believe that the Borough Commander recently explained that the rise in gun crime is as a result of commercial incidents eg. bank robberies / holdups.  Obviously, that doesn't really excuse it, but I think it is worth noting that this is not necessarily gang related.  The rape statistic is very very concerning.]

* 16% of Lambeth population have a long-term limiting illness. (p7) 
[Is it me, or is this a horrifying statistic?  Surely 16% of the UK doesn't have a long-term limiting illness?  Perhaps this ties in with the recent statistic that Lambeth is the top London borough for unemployment  (9.3% of Lambeth /working age/ people are unemployed).  I suspect that the limiting illness figure is related to obtaining benefits, and that more money is available if you can demonstrate illness.  But from that figure, I want to be careful of drawing Daily Fail type conclusions.  I suspect that in Lambeth, many people draw benefits to care for older and ill extended family members and prefer to raise their own families (instead of buying in labour).  This likely reduces the bill to the state on child care and adult care homes.  However, I suspect the Tory/Lib Dem coalition may not interpret things quite as charitably!] 

* There is a much higher prevalence of mental illness in Lambeth, compared with the country as a whole.  around 37,000 (over 10% of the population) were being treated for anxiety and depression in 2008. (P7) [Again, this is a very high figure.  I wonder whether people who suffer from mental illnesses tend to live in boroughs where they know that they can seek treatment, or whether those who suffer from mental illness seek one another out, or whether mental illness is better diagnosed in Lambeth or even whether there's some kind of environmental factor that results in the higher correlation between living in Lambeth and mental illness.]

* Lambeth is the 5th most deprived Borough in Lambeth and the 19th most deprived borough in England (2007).  (p7)

This is part 1 of my summary of the Whose Shout? report, and really just contains the headline statistics and the points (with my commentary in blod) that I find most interesting and which I've not seen elsewhere.  I've not commented at all upon the police / community consultative angle of the report, and I'll do that in part 2.  The report comes in at a whopping 91 pages, and I doubt it will reach a wider audience unless it's summarised somewhat.  It's very useful on account of its length, but I think that there are some other conclusions that readers of this blog might be interested in, without needing to read the whole thing.  Expect part 2 in the next few days.