Vauxhall Civic Society AGM tonight

Vauxhall Civic Society are holding their AGM tonight (7pm for 7:30pm) at St Peter's Church, SE11.  A representative from the US Embassy will come to the meeting to speak about their plans. 

Vauxhall Civic Society have a fantastic new website with a very comprehensive and amazing archive of historical material about Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall.  Take a look here.  They're also running an excellent news section, with snippets of information about events in the area.  (I wonder how they heard that the Queen Anne pub was to become a theatre) :-)

Another London Cycle Hire docking station - 4 Albert Embankment

Further to my post in late August to suggest that planning permission was requested for docks in Oval Way and Vauxhall Street (SE11), I can confirm that a planning request has also been submitted for a docking station on the pavement outside of 4 Albert Embankment (the International Maritime organization) (just into the SE1 border).  Could I ask Boris/Ken Bike riders to submit positive comments in favour of this location?  The South Bank employers group have often made negative noises about cycling on the South Bank and Kennington People on Bikes has a longish post here on suggested amendments to the SBEG cycling recommendations for North Lambeth.  Also, see the KPOB post here on how difficult it was to lock a bike during the Thames Festival.  It occurs to me that since the previous request for a docking station (the Fire Station Pier) was turned down, there might be people that don't want to see one on the South Bank.  It will probably need some support!

This is good news and (if successful) would substitute for the would-have-been Fire Brigade Pier station that never received planning permission.  One of my anonymous commentators said that I always seem to see bad news!  That is likely to be a true accusation, so I would like to take the opportunity to say that I think more docking stations are fantastic news.  Fabulous.  I love Boris/Ken bikes etc etc.

Whilst we're on the subject of bikes, I'd urge you to go and fill out the GLA survey on the Cycle Hire bikes and the new cycle routes superhighways.  The one that passes through Oval and Kennington is the CS7.  Submit your feedback and tell them how much you love/hate their cycling initiatives.

Kennington Park to lose play area to new housing (see plans) - is this the best deal for local children?

Further to Friday's post re. the development on St Agnes Place, Kennington Park, I had a chance to attend the planning consultation.  There's no positive way of putting the playground news.  The consolidation of Kennington Park Adventure Playground and the One O'Clock club would reduce the size of the One O'Clock club site quite substantially.  There are good arguments on the side of consolidating them and other good arguments in favour of retaining the land. I had some long conversations today which I'll summarise below.  In the meantime, here are the boards:

I assumed that the proposed development was London and Quadrant only.  Actually, there are two separate proposed developments (London & Quadrant and Family Mosaic), which happen to share an architect.  The 58 proposed new units which I mentioned yesterday (and which are shown above on the boards headed in green) are those that would be developed by London & Quadrant.  As you can see from the Masterplan, there are a number of positive features eg. the proposed cycle route (it's not clear from the diagram whether this runs from Bolton Crescent/Camberwell New Road) or whether it starts abruptly on St Agnes Place, but it's a good idea if extended to Camberwell New Road.  Also, the new development would form part of an attempt to join the northern section of Kennington Park with the southern section (without forcing people to walk all the way around the edge).  That's something that has been advocated for a long while.

50% social housing is the Lambeth Council target, so one can't complain (although that includes both socially rented and part-ownership).  I like the fact that the building seems sensibly proportioned (not too high) and would fit into the park well (there seem to be no nasty quirks that might grate in 50 years time).

The exact layout, flat size and has been made known at the time of consultation (something some of the other developers might adhere to).  One might point out that the four bedroom houses are considerably larger than the three bedroom homes, and are only available on the private market.  But that would be quibbling, right?  I mean, as the architect pointed out, it's just not possible to build social housing these days without having it paid for by private money.

I haven't got any immediate ideas how the Section 106 money from this development should be spent.  Since much of the housing will be aimed at families, there's a sense in which it might be useful to put it towards strengthening local schools.  I can't think of how it would be invested in transport in any useful way (since the proposed cycle route is already built in to the plans), but would be interested in comments, as usual.

The boards above (bordered in purple) now outline the Family Mosaic scheme, which is much smaller (18 proposed units) and would occupy the space that formerly belonged to the Rastafarian Temple.  I was told by the developer that Family Mosaic have a block further north in the park, and so they'd be performing a land swap with Lambeth Council to move the new housing closer together.  

As you can see from the board entitled "Housing", 100% of the development will be shared ownership.  There's not a lot more to say about the Family Mosaic development as far as I can see.

The next boards all relate to the playground itself (of which I have more to say below).  

From the board (above top), it's immediately clear that transposing the red area (on the left) on to the red area on the right that an immense amount of green play space is lost.  Clarification from the architect confirmed that 50% of the One O'Clock land would be lost (it looked like more to me).  However, this figure is the result of a clever little work around.  Apparently, during the One O'Clock club opening time, a special fold up chain link fence can be unrolled and so the club can be "extended into the green link" so that parts of the green link are taken over for the benefit  of the One O'Clock club.  If the special folding extension is /not/ included, the core One O'Clock club land on the /new/ site would measure 350 metres squared.  The old site offers the existing One O'Clock club 1600 metres squared.  You do the maths.  Is it worth losing the land?  

I really like the designs for the new playground (particularly the building that you can climb into via a ladder, and then climb through, and exit using a slide), but it perhaps doesn't make up for the loss of actual land.  The architect was particularly excited about these points, and they'd also considered the security of the building very carefully (appropriate use of steel shutters).

The defence offered (by the architect) in favour of consolidating the site was that the One O'Clock club only opens for 3 hours per day for 4 days per week.  The One O'Clock club is apparently "not well used" (at peak times, the architect suggested that 20 children use it), but that's somewhat convenient, considering that the council controls both the club and the land!  It's in the Council's interest to ensure that the One O'Clock club doesn't get enough funding/publicity so that it can then be claimed to be underused so that nobody objects to the new development.  Another more intriguing argument offered runs along these lines...  Theoretically, even less space is lost because "for most of the year, the two playgrounds are not even open at the same time".  The conflict occurs because in the holidays, the One O'Clock club opens in the middle of the Adventure playground day.

A further defence (again, from the architect) was offered such that the loss of land would be counteracted by using the new (smaller) site more efficiently.  The new building would occupy a corner spot (to be shared by both clubs) so that land use is maximised and so that there'd by more space for young people to play.  For modern needs, apparently, the One O'Clock club site is "just excessive".  But for future needs, who knows?  

Additionally... (again, from the architect), "the idea of bringing these two functions into one building is reducing maintenance and running costs and securing the long term future of the site."  "It's also cheaper to build a bigger building than two smaller ones so that more money is left to put into external space provision".  Such candour from an architect is quite extraordinary!  I must have looked a little surprised, so the architect suggested that the dispute wasn't so much their issue, but a matter for the council and the developer.  A conversation with the developer was in order.

How was it that two developments proposed in partnership with Lambeth Council resulted in less playground space for local people?  The developer noted that the entire St Agnes Place site is brownfield and designated for housing purposes in Lambeth's UDP.  But Lambeth didn't like the idea of just sticking a new housing development in the middle of the park, so they suggested performing a land swap which would swap the Adventure playground land with the land for new housing.  I pointed out that it wasn't exactly a swap, which the developer conceded and admitted that initially some land would have been lost from the Adventure playground.  However, the initial plan didn't go ahead because feedback from the planners suggested that the Adventure playground should not be separated  from the One O'Clock Club, and that ideally the two youth facilities should share a building.  Welcome to the future everybody.

The developer felt that the wooden play equipment on the sites was rotting and that there's not the money to reinvest (highly likely).  The local children have been consulted and they're quite in favour of the new proposals.  The developer admitted quite openly that there would be a loss of play space, but not a loss of open park.  That's possibly the best argument in favour of consolidating the land, but I'd be interested to hear what other locals think.  Is it less important to lose a youth facility that is located in a park?

What concerns me is not the fact that the One O'Clock club is currently under utilised as space, but that once a housing development is embarked upon, the land can never be returned to the public domain for the use of young people.  I /like/ the housing plans.  I /like/ the newly designed playground and building.  But I don't like the fact that the new play space is significantly smaller than it ever was and that land won't be regainable for young people in years to come.  Residents will need to decide if it's a sacrifice that they're prepared to make.

The architect and the developer agreed that the space to be utilised by the new playground was still a question open for debate.  It was agreed that hearing residents views was indeed the reason for consultation, so pressure put on the council or providing feedback into the consultation might still lead to revised plans.  The question is whether it's worth the fight.  Increasing the amount of playground space could potentially reduce the amount of social housing.  If the same number of units were to be built, and the playground space increased, the units would end up being smaller.  When one comes to ask how the common good might best be served, there's a sense of being presented with a question that has a "lose/lose" answer, and the upcoming cuts will only serve to sharpen this problem.

St Agnes Place (site of old Rastafari Temple) housing consultation & playground space

London and Quadrant are holding a consultation on their proposals to build 58 homes on St Agnes Place.  I'm afraid I'm rather late with this post, but there's still an opportunity to view the plans tomorrow (Saturday) at St Agnes Church (SE11 4BB) between 10am and 1pm.

St Agnes Place has a disputed and intriguing past, with the first house on the street squatted in 1969.  According to the wikipedia entry here, the council obtained a demolition order for the street and evicted the residents of 21 properties back in 2005.  However, that still left in place the Rastafari temple which was forcibly closed by the Council in 2007.  The residents were removed and subject to a police raid due to allegations of the site being used for drug dealing.  When the police raided, very little evidence of drug possession (other than marijuana) was found.  However, that conveniently left the temple free of residents and the council were then of course able to demolish it.   I'm not sure whether the worshipers of the Rastafari Temple were ever able to find another site to rent.  Does anybody know?

One pertinent matter at issue is the question of the One O'Clock Club and the Kennington Adventure playground.  We all know that cuts in youth provision from Lambeth may well be pending, but most people would not agree that developers would be allowed to build over the sites of an existing playground without agreeing to the provision of a new playground area of equivalent size. 

There is a possibility that some of the play space on the current Kennington Adventure playground site would be lost to a new housing development, which I'd contend should not be allowed to occur.  I'm unclear from the leaflets available so far (I'll scan and post these ASAP) whether any new playground would be of an equivalent size and contain the same facilities.  Note that in 2008, some of the local residents and children protested against the Council's plans to move the playground to a smaller and less suitable site.  I'm not sure (before anybody starts to shout) quite whether the new plans would mean the replacement of the current playground with one of a smaller size, so I think clarification from the Council about their plans in this regard would be useful.  (This matter bears a worrying resemblance with the Council's attempt to allow Archibshop Tenison School to build over the Triangle playground in Oval, and I've another post about that shortly.)

Edit:  See here for a more recent post on St Agnes Place consultation with accompanying plans and proposals.

Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall (KOV) community expo and Tweetup

If you've not seen it yet, the Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall (KOV) forum will be holding a community expo on Saturday between 12:00 and 17:00 in Spring Gardens (the park).  A community expo is a cross between a family fun day and a competition to see which community organisation can hand any given individual the most pieces of paper about local matters.  Lots of local organisations will be in attendance, including representatives from the Friends of Spring Gardens, Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, the Kennington Association, Vauxhall City Farm, the RVT, The Eagle and  no doubt many more.  The expo has its own website here and it seems it will be possible to get your dog repaired, get your bike chipped, learn Brazillian football and look at some farm animals.

The event's theme (according to the KOV post here) is "changing Vauxhall:  How it has changed, how it might change, and how you would wish it to change. Changing the environment, health, housing, educational opportunities etc."

Even more exciting is the fact that Jason_Cobb of the excellent Onion Bag blog is suggesting a *shhh* Tweetup.  If you're on Twitter and want to drop by Spring Gardens from 2pm, you'll be able to meet various other Twitter folk with interests in the community.  I'll amend this post with a time it might take place once that's known.  This is partly as a followup to the rather excellent tweetup held at Oval market recently. Obviously, in order to preserve my anonymity, I'll have to send somebody that will pretend to be the SE11 lurker :)

Brand new Tesco due to arrive at 38 - 40 Kennington Park Road

Further to my speculative posts, here and here, I can definitely announce the arrival of a brand new Tesco at 38-40 Kennington Park Road.  Tesco have taken a 15 year lease on the building from 19th April 2010 so I imagine that they'll open it as soon as the refurbishment is finished.  Tesco do not own the freehold.  I'm afraid I don't know whether Shakra services will remain (maybe someone else has more info.), but I suspect not.  Considering that we're now nearly 5 months into a relatively short lease, I imagine Tesco will be trying to open it ASAP.  Oddly, (but this is probably what attracted Tesco), it looks as though the land also has a right of way (including vehicles) over Opal Street.  That means (I suspect) that delivery to the building will take place at the back (which may well disturb residents of Opal Street) and it's close to a children's ball court.  What I'm not clear is whether the Opal Street residents will be able to enter the supermarket from their street or whether they'll just face the inconvenience of extra traffic without being able to gain easy access.

If Tesco manaage to open the proposed 216 Kennington Road branch, that will make 3 Tescos in SE11, which must be something of a monopoly, considering that we're a tiny postcode.  Still, Tesco is one of those shops that everybody likes to complain about and then inevitably ends up purchasing from.  It should benefit local residents at the north end of the road, and there's a dearth of shops in SE17 near Penrose Street, so I'm sure they'll receive plenty of custom.  Perhaps it will increase business at the Old Red Lion too, and I'm hopeful that Mansion House pub might be either re-opened or used by another business.

There's a huge amount of local news and goings on at the moment.  Expect further updates soon.

Update (1/10/2010) - as well as the signage application (see comments below), there's now an application (10/03220/FUL) for installation of air conditioning and fridges etc. so it's moving forward slowly.

Rumours about the Queen Anne in Vauxhall... a possible theatre?

For the last month, the snippet I wrote on the sad death of Denise D'Courtenay, (the publican of the Queen Anne in Vauxhall), has been receiving an inordinate number of hits.  I've no explanation for that, since it was a churnalism post where I just pushed readers to the Sun and the Mail.  The pub must have been much more popular than I realised for what I consider to be a deserted (in a metropolitan sense) area.

Last Saturday, I noticed that the bright orange facade of the Queen Anne had been boarded up and it was looking rather sorry for itself.  Today, however, I heard from a reliable source that the pub has been sold and is to be turned into a mini-theatre.  That's all the news we have so far, but do check back for further information...

Edit 1st September 2011: For more info. on what became of the Queen Anne pub, you might want to read my review of the Tea House Theatre that replaced it.

The two faces of Vauxhall

The Evening Standard article naming Vauxhall as the "Knightsbridge of the South" raised a few laughs on Twitter a few weeks ago.  "Which PR agent dreamt that up?" was the inevitable response of @thelondonagent, a central London estate agent.  And the rest of us chortled away merrily, unconvinced that a new Pret a Manger was quite enough to elevate our beloved Vauxhall  to the splendid(?) heights of a Knightsbridge or a Chelsea.  The reason for the silly comparison was the news that the Penthouse flat in the new St George Tower (which looks to be several years away from being finished, even if it's erected at the same rate as Strata aka "the Lady Shave") is to be worth £50 million. 

The article also informs readers that "Vauxhall was known for decades as a rundown area... but is now being gentrified." Most folk who have been reading this blog will know that I favour a gentle regeneration for Vauxhall; the provision of new property that will include social housing, the removal of the gyratory, the addition of diverse shops, and improvements to the landscape. What we're likely to get is a new city, the size of Welwyn Garden City, between Battersea and Vauxhall. But that's another story. The point is, Vauxhall could use some work. We all know that. The clubs around Vauxhall have turned Vauxhall and Kennington into a bit of a residential gay mecca, even for those that never frequent them, but we wouldn't want to be entirely rid of them in the name of gentrification, even if their presentation and noise leaves something to be desired:

(Credit to @markvauxhall for this recent image over the Bank Holiday)

More importantly, Vauxhall is home to people who live in flats that have views like this:

(Credit to Moving Space for the image)

and flats that look like this:

(Credit to Luxury Apartments for the image)

as well as views like this:

(Credit to the Guardian's article on the Improving Face of Vauxhall for the image)

and flats that look like this:

 (Credit to Boidus for this image)

We are an area, a city even, of the "haves" and "have nots".  For better or worse, in a somewhat acrimonious marriage, we are forced to live alongside one another.  I can't see that changing, £50 million penthouse or otherwise.  But what does seem to be happening is that the "haves" are able to afford goods that would previously have been shared by a community as common goods.  £50 million might buy you the best flat on the block, and access to "an infinity pool taking up all the ground floor", but it would also pay for a public leisure centre.  There will always be disparities in income and access to resources, but must they always be such large disparities?  I've supported the nebulous entity of "political liberalism" for some years, but I'm not alone in wondering whether our current form of economic liberalism might have had its day.  And no, I don't have an alternative system.  I'm not envious or jealous of the £50 million flat owner.  Having that much money, I suspect, might lead to one living quite a lonely existence.  Being able to afford anything from anywhere or pay for every service from everybody means that one is no longer dependent on anybody.  You might be able to swim in peace and quiet in the early mornings, but you'll never see a child make their first splash or watch an elderly person swim more gracefully than they can walk. 

A very expensive flat and trappings will probably mean that you never need to walk past the front of Vauxhall Station or use the tube, but perhaps you won't quite be able to escape the alcoholic fumes of those who are not so fortunate.  Just across the road from your luxury penthouse (which I don't doubt, you've worked hard to own) exist a number of sanctuaries for the homeless.  Vauxhall is privileged to house Vauxhall Cross - Centrepoint (accommodation for 27), Graham House - ThamesReach (accommodation for 69) and St Mungo's, who sometimes set up an emergency winter shelter in Vauxhall. At the station, the familiar logo of the Big Issue offices bears down upon those who wait for the buses.
 

That there are issues with alcohol in Vauxhall is apparent to those who are in the habit of night time wandering. Readers might be forgiven for wondering (looking at the picture above) whether those issues are present inside or outside our clubs. That's not a non-sequitur. The pursuance of the previous government's liberal social policy has resulted in 24 hour pub opening and the ever-increasing availability of cheap booze. For some gay folk, that liberal social policy is important. It keeps the clubs open and the alcohol flowing. But the head of Thames Reach is concerned to highlight the other side of the picture.  Homelessness is far less sexy than housing, so whilst plenty of articles mention up-and-coming VoHo, they don't usually acknowledge the presence of those that don't have shelter.  The little known issue of super-strength alcohol in Vauxhall hasn't had as wide a mention as the £50 million pad, but nevertheless, still causes the Guardian to produce headlines such as "Super strength alcohol is killing more people than crack and heroin". 

Thames Reach are currently running a campaign to increase the price of cheap, high alcohol drinks.  These are not drinks that many discerning folk would order from the bar on Saturday night, but they are the drinks that are killing the homeless, our homeless.  Mike Nicholas, spokesman for Thames Reach said in the Guardian, "the vast majority of homeless people living in Thames Reach's 59-bed hostel in Vauxhall, south London, are there because of problems with super-strength alcohol.".  Jeremy Swain, the chief executive of Thames Reach noted, "Of course, alcoholism among the homeless is hardly new. But what is different is the speed of the deterioration caused by the super-strength drinks. Consuming them is akin to pushing the fast forward on your life.".  A can of super strength cider can be bought for as little as 59p and contains 4.5 units of alcohol.  Consequently, Thames Reach are campaigning to persuade the government to increase the prices of super-strength alcoholic drinks (not anything that would affect small cider distributors, since most super-strength cider doesn't go near real apples), and despite considering myself a broad defender of the aforementioned political liberalism, I think I support them.  As I was chatting to a new Vauxhall barber last week, asking him how he liked South London, he lamented "I'm forever being bothered by people asking for 20p or £1, or requests to buy alcohol for somebody who has been banned".

We can't have been the only party to have our sumptuous feast at the Vauxhall Tavern sports day crashed by a couple of homeless folk.  And why should the homeless not be party to the celebrations within the area?  We had enough food and drink and were happy to share.  The event was free, and anybody could walk in the park.  But as we were all sitting there enjoying the sun, I wondered whether those folk would still be around in a few years time.  Might they have pushed the "fast forward" button on their lives through super-strength alcohol?  I don't have an answer or the perfect policy to balance paternalism with liberalism, but I think it's important to keep pointing out the presence of those who are homeless, damaged through addiction and those who are poor.  It matters that we live alongside one another or we'll just end up with ghettos on the edge of central London for those we'd rather not see.  So welcome, £50 million flat buyer, whoever you are, to London's second Knightsbridge.  Your existence might well never be disturbed by the poor, but that does not mean that the poor should not be disturbed by your existence.

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?

Lollard Street Adventure Playground Fun Day Today

I'm not sure that my blog's target audience is parents with young children, but just on the off-chance, the Friends of Lollard Street Adventure Playground (FOLSAP) are holding a fun day today to give everybody a chance to find out more about the adventure playground.  They've invited parents, councillors and officials to demonstrate what takes place at the playground and show how important it is for young people to have a place to play.  It's free and anybody can go.

Lollard St Adventure Playground is opposite the former Lilian Baylis School on Lollard Street and the play day lasts from 12:30 - 16:30.

If you want more info. take a look at the article on the Kennington Association News blog here.

North Lambeth Writers Project - seeking submissions

The North Lambeth Writers Project (set up a couple of months ago) is seeking to publish its debut October edition on the theme of urban regeneration.  If you enjoy writing and have anything to say about regeneration (locally or otherwise), consider submitting it to them.  They'll accept prose, poetry and essays.  The deadline for submission is 15th September and you need to submit your writing (including name and home address) to submissions@northlambethwritersproject.org

The definition the group cite for the word "regeneration" is taken from Greenwich Council's website:

Regeneration 'centres on the physical development of land, buildings, and new transport systems. [It also refers to] social regeneration in terms of skills, social and economic inclusion, prosperity, education, housing, health, community development and the environment.'

Perhaps you're wondering "am I in North Lambeth?".  The boundaries for this group are quite fluid and include the areas known as Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall, Vassall, Stockwell, Waterloo, and some sections of the South Bank.  In any case, your work will be considered if you live outside of the area, but choose to write about the locality.

Good news in the pipeline for Crampton Primary School

Crampton Primary School in Iliffe Street, SE17 (behind Kennington tube) have submitted a planning application for an extension to build:

* A new entrance and reception for the school
* A new classroom
* Additional accommodation for multi-use teaching room and space for breakfast club
* Additional accommodation for an enlarged library
* A pedestrian entrance on Iliffe Street and new staffroom

I've still not yet typed up the notes (the meeting was very long) from the angry Kennington parents meeting a few weeks ago, but Crampton Primary was named as a popular school that has not previously been an option for Kennington parents who live in Lambeth, on account of the borough boundaries.  Crampton Primary falls under Southwark Council's control, meaning applications from Lambeth parents would usually be unsuccessful.  This (I imagine) poses a particular problem for parents that live on or near the Kennington Park Road boundary. 

I'd certainly welcome a little fuzzy-boundary thinking from both councils and LEAs so that one is not deprived of services or education on account of arbitrarily living on one side of the road or other.  Lambeth Council of course intend to collapse these lines somewhat (at least between Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham), but that's in order to make job and service cuts, rather than specifically in order to benefit residents.  The Kennington Park Road borough boundary and the postcode boundary follow the same line, which I think probably form a social boundary. Buying a house in SE17 is considerably cheaper than buying one in SE11 (not sure about the differences in costs of social housing), so these geographic lines (be they borough, postcode or parish) are invisible boundaries that are used (whether by design or accident) to separate Londoners from one another. 

When the school entrance system is changed in time for entrants in 2011, I understand that parents will be able to apply for any London primary school, continuing to make Crampton Primary an option for local Lambeth parents.  It looks as though Crampton Prumary school are taking advantage of their popularity and have obtained the means to expand.  [But, actually, if you take a look at the comment from the Head of Governors below, you'll notice that they're not expanding so much as building extra classroom space to accommodate a population bulge.]  Hopefully their planning application will be successful.  (Of course, this opening of the boundaries might just have the effect of making North Lambeth primary schools further over-subscribed due to an influx of applications from Southwark parents, but we won't know until it happens).

Cycle hire scheme - more docking stations needed

I cycled home this evening using the Cycle Hire scheme and discovered, to my dismay that Kennington Post Office, Kennington Cross, Kennington Tesco, Vauxhall Station and Sancroft Street docking stations were all full.  It appears that Kennington is quite the fashionable place to visit... or that we're as far south as people can get before resorting to buses and tubes.  The Evening Standard has a photo of the Serco personnel supplying extra bikes (or docks) at Waterloo Station here.  In my view, TFL have massively underestimated the demand and popularity of the Cycle Hire Scheme, particularly amongst commuters.

London-SE1 spotted a rather interesting clipping that suggests we might be due to gain some additional docking stations in SE11 soon. The proposed sites would be Vauxhall Street and Oval Way.  Vauxhall Street is quite long and so the site could be anywhere between Black Prince Road and the Oval Cricket Ground.  Oval Way is a tiny street and extra docks their should relieve the crowding at Tescos and provide a cycle hire option for the young people at Lilian Baylis School.  Objections from residents/businesses etc.have to be made by the 6th September.  Let's hope that nobody objects!

Also, if you're interested, here is a list of sites refused permission for docking stations.  Six sites in Lambeth were refused, three in SE11 and three in SE1.  One of the SE11 potential docks was Windmill Row, which many of us objected to on the basis that it is a very congested thoroughfare, doesn't have wide pavements and removes car parking that elderly/disabled people use to access the shops.  The other SE11 spots that didn't get permission were:  190-194 Kennington Lane (this is on the opposite side of the road to Imperial Court) and Sancroft Street where it crosses Newburn Street (2 stations have been built in Sancroft Street so this one wasn't a great loss).  In SE1, Webber Street and the Cut outside the Young Vic both had permission refused.  Near the border, permission was refused for a dock in SE1 near Lambeth Bridge.  The Lambeth Bridge dock is the one that I consider most important.  There's a lack of bikes anywhere near Westminster and this one would have bridged the gap somewhat.  I'm hoping that another application might be made.

Edit:  Under the guise of "why there aren't more bikes near Waterloo", Ross Lydall has published research by Ashley Lumsden (Lib Dem in Streatham Hill) on the reasons for Lambeth's refusal of the above docks.  Quite frankly, I fail to see how Windmill Row, Sancroft St and Lambeth Bridge quite count as Waterloo. Lambeth's refusal of six docks (many at the request of residents) hardly compares with Westminster's refusal of 29 and K&C's refusal of 12.  The real reason that there aren't more docks at Waterloo is because TFL chose to prioritise the Cycle Hire Scheme roll out for non-commuters.  Additional docks at stations will happen (we are lead to believe) during phase 2 of the installation.  Lumsdens' complaints look a little like political point scoring.

Local trees being chopped down, inadequate recycling and extension of Kelly's pub licensing hours

Over the last week, I've received a number of emails from readers on a variety of hyper-local topics that don't quite warrant posts of their own, so here's a quick summary:

Firstly, one resident has noted that Lambeth Council are being rather heavy handed in their removal of trees in SE11.  I've been informed that two trees have already been culled from Chester Street / Denny Street.  I could only find one of them (or its remains, at any rate).  What a mess!







Alarmingly, another two trees are scheduled for removal shortly, and yet all of the trees that have been chopped (or are facing the chop) look healthy.  Here are the two concerned (left on Denny Street and right on Chester Street):





The resident in question has contacted the council, but wanted me to publicise the danger that the trigger-happy council pose to the trees.  A visit this evening yielded more info on  the tree on Chester Way and it seems that some of the residents are protesting the cull:






















The poster on the left points out that it would take two decades to grow another cherry tree, and adds that the tree is being destroyed on the basis that the trees roots are exposed and it therefore may form a danger.  Is this not a "Health & Safety gone mad" blooper of the year?  The poster designer has instead suggested that it would be better to raise the pavement than destroy the tree.  Hear, hear!

This is probably a question for the Princes Ward councillors, but it would be good to receive clarification about the reasons for the tree removal. Perhaps additional residents need to act to prevent the removal of established trees if the only reason for cutting them down is exposed roots.  The tree on Denny Street doesn't contain an explanation about why it's facing the chop:

This issue probably should  be drawn to the attention of the Kennington Association, as there may well be other local trees that Lambeth wish to cut down, and residents deserve some prior warning or explanation in order to protest if necessary.

Secondly, one reader has noted that I've previously praised Lambeth Council's recycling procedures and good performance in the area of recycling.  The correspondent begs to differ and is unhappy with the frequency which which the one bin on his block is emptied.  (Recycling collections generally take place weekly in Lambeth).  The reader has attempted to get his block's bin emptied more frequently, but has had no success.  Cllr Jack Hopkins (so I'm assuming this refers to Oval Ward) did respond to one email from the correspondent, but subsequent emails on the matter have not received a response.  Does anybody else on local estates in the area suffer from the same issue?  I know that many estates suffer from people using recycling bins as rubbish bins (I'm unclear if this is lack of understanding of policy or willful misuse), but are there a dearth of recycling bins in the Borough, particularly given the size of some local estates?  It would be good to draw this to the attention of the Council if it's a wider problem.

Lastly, one reader wanted to highlight their objection to a request made by Kelly's Pub (in Clapham Road) to extend their opening hours to 5am from Thursday to Sunday.  I don't intend to go into detail here (suffice to say that the request seems wholly unreasonable), since Jason Cobb has covered that patch of SW8 adequately on his Onionbag blog in a post here and another here.  Do remember to submit objections since the Council won't hear residents' voices otherwise.

Bondway - Appeal against planning refusal (Part 1: Opening Statement)

The Bondway Tower planning appeal began on 20th July and was presented at Lambeth Town Hall.  Many representatives for the local community met (headed by David Boardman of Kennington Association Planning Forum) to prepare several lengthy documents and then  present them at the Appeal.  Viva Vauxhall mentioned the appeal a while ago, and the documents (which present a strong argument against the erection of the 149 metre Bondway Tower) are available on the Kennington Association Planning blog.

What I'm going to do in a series of blog posts is try to distill the contents of some of the Bondway documents.  The information that David Boardman and co. revealed through a Freedom of Information request from Lambeth is fascinating and I think readers should be aware of the sheer scale of the proposed Bondway development.  The Appeal campaign (mounted by many represenatives from the local community) has probably not received enough exposure, due to its necessarily dense and detailed documents.  I've tried to summarise the info. and only publicise the interesting bits, which will appear over the next week or so in a Bondway Appeal series.  My comments are in red.

Bondway Appeal Series, Part 1 (opening statement):
20th July - Opening Statement to the Bondway Enquiry Document:

The Vauxhall community has not been well served by the planning system.  The gyratory is despised by residents and TFL has failed to engage with the community about how it might be improved.  The Bondway developers hope to "repopulate" what they call a "traffic dominated backwater".  Boardman notes that the area is not in need of repopulation, but would benefit from regeneration. 

Following the Secretary of State's decision to allow the St George Wharf Tower (180m), it's inevitable that developers would want to build a cluster, but planning guidance is not clear how this should happen.  Planning documents are only available in draft eg. Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Planning Framework (VNEB), but have not been formally adopted.  The Kennington Association Planning Forum complained that there is no outline plan for the area, but were informed by the Bondway developers that one did exist, and had been used to write the Vauxhall SPD!  A FOI request forced Lambeth Council to reveal the document (named "Vauxhall Urban Design Study").  However, the Urban Design Study revealed a plan for a different cluster of buildings to the one in the VNEB report. 

Ok, if you're still with me (apologies for the acronyms), it appears that the VNEB (document commissioned by the Mayor of London) and the SPD (document commissioned by Lambeth Council) formulated two different plans of what a cluster of tall buildings in Vauxhall would look like.  Surprisingly (given Boris' view on tall buildings), the VNEB study suggested taller buildings in Vauxhall than the SPD study. 

Indeed, the SPD study suggested that the cluster be based around the Vauxhall Triangle / Vauxhall Cross site (that's Kylun's site) with Bondway Tower being shorter than it. Additionally, the Lambeth study (SPD) suggested 40% employment space, and Bondway developers have submitted plans for 10%. More crucially, the Mayor's Density Plan suggests that units should be built at 405 units per hectare.  The Design for London report gives a wider limit of 500 units per hectare.  Bondway Developers wish to house people at 1297 per hectare.  This would have serious consequences for residents living in the buildings, and one would imagine that tenants offered social housing would suffer the most (as they inevitably do in such developments).

Boardman noted that Bondway had not provided reasons for departing from providing the originally agreed percentage of social housing.   A concern was also raised about the negative impact the proposed Bondway tower would have on Vauxhall Park.  Additionally, Vauxhall Underground Station is at capacity due to gate line and escalator capacity (gates already have to be closed at times, during rush hour).  Finally, Lambeth (as a borough) has an Open Space deficiency.  Lambeth through the SPD had suggested that additional green space be added to the west of the Bondway site.  Bondway are in favour of this, but want it added using their neighbour's land.  The Kennington Association Planning Forum consider that Bondway should offer Section 106 funding for the purchase of such land, and that the Section 106 monies payable by the applicant should be a considerably larger sum than is ordinarily the case to buy land to mitigate the space deficiency.  They suggest the figure of £10 million.