Vauxhall Square and Vauxhall Linear Walkway exhibition board photos

I'm slowly adding commentary and photos to this post on Vauxhall Square and the associated Linear Walkway, but in the meantime, feel free to browse the boards from the exhibition.

One of the advantages that I think CLS have over other developers is the fact that their headquarters are based in Vauxhall on part of the site intended for the Vauxhall Square development, so they're well aware of the site's strengths and weaknesses.  I came away from the exhibition thinking more positively of the developers and development, but that doesn't mean that the plan will be considered perfect by local residents, and I'll elaborate on a few responses I've had below.

Display board #1 attempts to show the exact location  of Vauxhall Square, but it's not clear to those who aren't hugely familiar with Vauxhall's sprawl of warehouses.  The development is bounded by Parry Street, Wandsworth Road, Bondway and Miles Street.  See my sketchy google map for a more approximate location (the shading does not delineate the exact boundary of the site).

Also, take a look at the following photo for a better idea.  The yellow building with blue windows at the top right hand side of the photo is where one of the towers will be situated.  The white-rooved warehouse area will be cleared and that area will mostly be taken up by the new Vauxhall Square.

The photo below shows (far left) a yellow building currently occupied by a homeless shelter.  The second tower will be placed on top of that building slightly further back from the road.  The homeless shelter (whose building is not apparently brilliant) is to be entirely replaced and moved to another section of the site.  (I take back my sarcastic comments that CLS had not considered the needs of homeless residents in the locale and have removed them from my previous post.):

The new homeless shelter will be cited roughly where this car park appears (centre):

The inclusion of the number of injuries and fatalities at Vauxhall Cross on board #2 is a clever device.  Quite frankly, I'm surprised that there haven't been more accidents.  Also, I'm impressed that CLS are at least /saying/ that they're thinking about cyclists (as well as pedestrians) on their boards.  What's interesting  is that CLS have assumed that the Vauxhall gyratory will remain in place (Lambeth Council are known to desire its removal, but this is opposed by TFL).  Consequently, the Linear Walkway (see further down) may prove Lambeth Council's most viable option.  One positive about the Vauxhall Square development is that it shows some thought as to the inhospitable nature of Vauxhall and at least proposes a solution (even if it proves unviable) to residents:

I believe that the "terrace of townhouses" referred to on Board #3 are houses that would be demolished.  Take a look at Tradescant blog post on the subject for a close up photo of the terrace.

Board #4 gives an introduction to the possibility of Vauxhall Linear Walk.  The Linear Walk would be a giant pedestrian (and supposedly cycle friendly) overpass through Vauxhall that wouldn't involve crossing the huge 6 lane road to go the gym or visit a supermarket or go to the cinema.  Considering that there is currently no humane mode in which a pedestrian might navigate through Vauxhall, the Linear Walk suggestion surely cannot make matters worse than they are at present.  The initial comments on the Linear Walk at the London-SE1 forum aren't particularly positive and Kennington People On Bikes considers the Linear Walk is "sticking a plaster on a running sore".  He thinks that vehicular traffic dominates the area in an unacceptable manner, and looking down over the 6 lane road, it's difficult not to disagree.  On the other hand, nobody else has come up with a better suggestion.

I asked a lot of questions about accessibility re. buggies/wheelchairs/bikes, and was told that the walkway would be accessible by lifts at certain points (which doesn't give me a great deal of hope because of the never-ending propensity of Londoners to urinate in enclosed spaces).  Also, I'm concerned about the frequency of lift breakdowns, and how that might hamper some of society's more vulnerable (I'm not thinking cyclists) in moving around Vauxhall.  I also asked about security since one of the issues of an unpatrolled walkway would be crime.  Apparently the walkway would be the responsibility of Vauxhall Square site personnel, but it's not clear that they would "police" it per se.  (And indeed, do local residents really want private security firms doing "policing"?  Not really.)  I think that the viability of the walkway is dependent upon the questions of security and accessibility being answered well.  I'd like to know whether the architects have considered non-male wheelchair users as something other than a second thought.  How many women currently feel safe when walking alone in Vauxhall at night?  And how many women would be happy to use the proposed elevated linear walk alone in Vauxhall at night?  Those should not be secondary architectural questions.  Rant over.

Board #5 is general blurb about CLS and their base in Vauxhall:

The "square" in Vauxhall Square is to be the centrepiece of the new development, shown in Board #6.  The aim is for a public space akin to Paternoster Square (which is relatively empty at weekends and full of city types during the week) (see Board #10).  This being Vauxhall, chances are it probably won't work in the same way.  The development's security personnel would have responsibility for the square, so I suppose there's a question of quite how "public" it will be, but open space is a positive.... or is it?

One person that I spoke to at the exhibition felt that Vauxhall Square should not be paved, but should ideally include some green space which would link up with Vauxhall Park (the green area below on the left of the photo) forming a green corridor that would link through to the new Linear Park (you can see the linear park on the model below as it lies directly between and beyond the two towers).  It sounds like a good idea in theory, and apparently the developers are receptive to such ideas, but I don't know how it would work because of the railway that runs through the area forming a huge barrier between Vauxhall Park and Vauxhall Square:

Board #7 is the reason that the Evening Standard dramatically proclaimed, "Skyscraper threat to ski jump bus station".  The issue is that the Linear Walk would rise up over the top of the bus station, and retaining the canopy is not really part of the CLS plan.  I've received quite a few emails now from readers interested in the development, but not one person has made any noise about saving the canopy, so I'm not sure that it's too important.  A competition has been launched to replace the canopy and design the Linear Walk:

Board #8 is just more blurb on the Linear Walk:

This photo shows some of the nine or so potential exits from the Linear Walk.  There are also stairwells inside the structure too:

The Linear Walk is bipartite.  Here's the smaller walkway which crosses the busy Wandsworth Road (and which would entail the destruction of the terraced housing), linking Vauxhall Square with the Linear Park, and forming the "entrance" to the rest of the Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea developments:

On Board #9, we see the introduction of retail, restaurants, another hotel and also a cinema.  I wondered whether the cinema might not compete with the Kylun Towers cinema, but was informed that the Kylun cinema was likely only to have one screen and be for residents only.  I don't seem to recollect that being the case during the Kylun exhibition, so I do wonder about being fobbed off with the "cinema" line.  Not, of course, that a local cinema wouldn't be a fantastic asset.  I remain concerned that the market in the area will be flooded with hotels (there are many being building in Waterloo too).  How many have we reached now.  Five? Six?:

My favourite line on Board #10 is the mention of the Post Office, clearly something that would be vital for businesses and residents.  We've only had to fight off two post office closures in the past few years, one on Kennington Road, and another in Vauxhall Street so I'm presuming it would be a private Post Office, immune from the imminent massive public sector cuts.

However, I don't think anybody can object to improvements in the railway arches and surrounding streets, and the advantage of the Vauxhall/Nine Elms plan (over against, say, the Elephant) is that it doesn't generally involve the displacement of current residents in the area.  The plan on Board #10 (you'll have to zoom in) shows 8 retail/restaurant units in addition to the cinema and 2 office units, but I imagine that's just a broad brush stroke, and the units will be quite large and probably divided up to create additional businesses.  Scroll to the bottom of the plan and you'll see, separated by an attractive line of trees, both the hostel for the homeless and adjoining student accommodation.  That will be interesting!:

Board #11 lists all of the important people that have been consulted about the plan so far:

More blurb, with board #12 featuring a view of the twin towers from the Battersea end. (Notice how the sketch's perspective indicates that the St George Vauxhall Tower appears to be much much taller than the Vauxhall Square twin towers.  In reality, there's not much difference in height between them.) Also, a nice view of the US Embassy and moat:

Here's the same view from the model.  I really liked the models at the CLS exhibition, and they photograph well when they're not placed in plastic boxes:

Board #13 mentions the two aerial walkways that are successful in Paris and New York.  Obviously, it doesn't mention the seventies walkways liberally littered across the UK and avoided by the general public.  See the comments on this post for a few points from locals so far. Of course, in the interests of fairness, we should allow that they may not be representative.  But even still, I can't figure out what separates the successful aerial walkways from those that are avoided by the general public and I'm not sure Vauxhall is the best place for a new "test case":

Boards #14-#16 are only of interest to architects or others involved in the design competition:

Finally, here's a quick view of one of the models which gives, from Vauxhall Park, a better perspective on the height of the Vauxhall Square towers and all of the surrounding buildings:

Florian Place / 8 Albert Embankment exhibition photos 2011 - (Plans amended to reduce tower heights)

I'm going to add my own comments to these later this weekend, but for now, I'm uploading for anybody that hasn't had a chance to go to the exhibition.

In the meantime, I've received an email from a few people asking how to comment on these proposals.  You need to access 10/04473/FUL on the Lambeth Planning portal and click "submit comments".  The developers submitted their new plans to Lambeth  well before the 11th/12th Feb planning exhibition.  On the Lambeth planning portal, the final date for comments  is technically 11th February which makes the developers appear underhand.  Apparently though, the development wasn't publicly advertised until recently so the official end date for comments is 21st February (in my view, Lambeth Council should amend the portal), but in reality submissions will be accepted until the development goes to the planning committee around April or maybe June.

Board #1 helpfully shows the totality of the site.  It's a large piece of land and includes more than the 8 Albert Embankment frontage.  Note that there's a small block that will be developed just the other side of the railway bridge:

Accident on Clapham Road outside Oval tube station - injuries sustained not critical

Last night, there was an accident on Clapham Road (almost opposite Oval tube station) involving two motorists and a motorcycle at about 6pm.  Buses were placed on diversion and the road was closed.  Police mentioned to a bystanders that injuries were sustained by all involved, but none of the people involved in the accident are in a critical condition.  There were no fatalities.
There's a brief report (and photo) of the incident over on Wanderlee's blog.

Northern Line extension vs. Affordable Housing for Nine Elms - £58 million funding gap

Last summer, a Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) was conducted concerning the new Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea regeneration area.   It contains information about a vasty array of transport, health, education etc. requirements for the set up of the new "Nine Elms" town.  As soon as I can, I will disseminate the contents of that document, but in the meantime, chapter 12 (the section about 106 agreements) has been published by the Mayor of London and is now being consulted upon.  Although this chapter is rather dull and concerns Section 106 monies etc. the comments on it are likely to be very important to groups that are concerned with social housing and how the demographic of the new VNEB is to be constituted.

The matter of affordable housing considerably affects the levels of funding available for infrastructure.  It's recognised by the Funding Study that asking developers to provide a high percentage of affordable housing will affect the levels of contributions they can make towards the Northern Line Extension.  The government has not announced whether or how much they will make available in grants for the implementation of affordable housing, which adds confusion to the proceedings.  Chapter 12 of the Development Infrastucture Study makes it clear that Infrastucture is to be given the priority over affordable housing.  Whilst Lambeth Council would normally seek 40% or 50% affordable housing, in this instance, the study makes clear that 15% is more likely to be an adequate target:

"the 15% affordable housing option is considered the most appropriate for the majority of the opportunity area. However, the affordable housing level required by Lambeth will normally be 40%, although for sites within close proximity to the proposed station at Nine Elms and those which may not be suitable for family housing, the affordable housing level will normally be 15%."

It seems to me that this places the community in a double bind.  If anything greater than 15% affordable housing is requested, the developers may turn around and say that they cannot provide enough funding for the Northern Line Extension.  Since the Northern Line Extension is required for the whole project to go ahead (particularly the Battersea part), there appears to be no grounds for argument.  What do readers think?  Your views on the document should be sent to: mayor@london.gov.uk with the email subject heading, "VNEB S106" no later than March 21st.

Despite contributions to be made by the developers to the intrastructure, there is still a funding gap of £58 million (assuming economic recovery), and consequently it's recognised that some infrastructure projects will have to be prioritised over others.  The document notes:

It is not yet possible to determine which projects will be prioritised. However whilst it is recognised that Northern Line Extension is vital to the success of the Opportunity Area, a number of other transport and non-transport infrastructure projects are also required to make the development successful.

This raises questions in my mind about the level of commitment to the Northern Line Extension.  What will happen if the £58 million hole cannot be plugged?

Developments within the VNEB have been excluded from having to make contributions to the Crossrail project on account of needing to contribute to other infrastructure eg. the Northern Line Extension.  Indeed, many of the developers at Elephant are objecting that they're so far away from Crossrail, they shouldn't be forced to make payments, so it seems sensible to ensure that the VNEB funding goes to the Northern Line Extension.  Developments that lie on the river itself in what is being called "Zone A" (orange area on the above diagram) will be obliged to make larger contributions than developments in "Zone B" (purple area on the above diagram.  It looks as though most of the Vauxhall developments lie in Zone B.  A contribution tariff is displayed in the full version of the Section 106/CIL study. 

Bondway Tower in Vauxhall refused by Secretary of State - inadequate provision of open space

In March last year, Lambeth Council refused to grant planning permission for a proposed 42-storey tower in Vauxhall, known as Bondway.  The Bondway's developers (London and Regional) appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, and a public enquiry was held in July/August last year.  On account of a conflict over the size of the proposal (over 150 units) which fits with government plans to create more housing and the perceived risk to a World Heritage site, the appeal was passed to the Secretary of State (Eric Pickles) for a decision to be made.  The Planning Inspector recommended that London and Regional's appeal be dismissed and the Secretary of State agreed.  Consequently, the ruling is that the Bondway Tower should not be built.

The Secretary of State considered that the proposed Bondway's greatest shortcoming was the relationship of the building to its surroundings.  Whilst the building was considered sustainable and with certain design merits, it lacked "well planned public open spaces" and the proposals apparently also failed to provide adequate pedestrian links to the wider public realm.  In addition, the "visual mass" of the building was felt to be "overbearing in relation to its surroundings".  Also, the Secretary of State agreed with the Planning Inspector that the lack of amenity space (particularly children's play area) could not be solved by the developer acquiring more land.

Such a conclusion should alarm developers who are based anywhere within the Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area, since much of the open space available to the surrounding buildings is likely to be provided (or so we've been told) in the form of a linear park.  If Vauxhall Park (and surrounds) are judged not to be enough public open space for the Bondway, then it may well be that additional public space will have to be found (which means "given up" by developers) in order to progress any of the new developments within Vauxhall/Nine Elms, where the amount of open space is said to be very low.  Of course, it also means that the Vauxhall Square developers (CLS) have been quite clever with their proposals, which include the incorporation of a large public square...

Concerning the Westminster World Heritage site, the Inspector felt that whilst no assets would be directly affected, the proposals might affect the settings of certain (but not all) listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and Westminster itself.  (That turn of phrase seems very unclear to me, especially when the former government controversially allowed the construction of the Vauxhall Tower by St George.  However, I think it does appear to represent a change in government policy which all developers will have to consider).

One point of concern for many local people has been the issue of overshadowing by tall towers.  Neither the Secretary of State nor the Planning Inspector concede ground on this point.  On the contrary, they argue that "Vauxhall Park... would not be significantly harmed by overshadowing" and that "privacy cannot be expected in a public park".  The point that is accepted is one of over-use.  The sheer number of people that would end up using Vauxhall Park would "erode its recreational function and the character of its open spaces".  It looks as though the argument against the Bondway was won almost entirely on arguments about open space.

There were some positives.  20% of housing supply as affordable was praised, as was the likely increase in employment numbers and indeed the "design of the tower".  Note that the site is still considered an "appropriate location" for tall buildings, so don't expect the end of this matter.  I imagine Residential Land will simply have to overhaul their plans to better provide for improved open space and pedestrian access.  However, it was felt by the Secretary of State (despite the good design) that the tower would be "overbearing" in relation to local surroundings.  The benefits are not said to outweigh the conflict with Lambeth's development plan, so this tower will not be going ahead in proposed form.  (Of course, there's room to appeal again through the High Court, but I imagine it would likely be cheaper just to re-work the plans).

The matter of transport is more interesting, and whilst the Inspector and the Secretary of State seem to think that the development promotes a reduction in the need to travel and use of sustainable transport choices, neither of them enter into discussion about transport capacity, which is a point continually raised by users of Vauxhall tube station....  One of my Twitter followers posted this scene at Vauxhall tube the other day with the caption "Vauxhall station this morning. Not an unusual occurrence":

I'd argue that this decision represents a significant victory for the local people who intervened and made representations against the building at the enquiry during the summer. Yes, most residents (myself included) support sensible redevelopment and regeneration in the heart of Vauxhall. There's room for improvement. However, such improvement should not be undertaken at the cost of current residents or in a manner that seeks to exploit public amenities. I'm delighted that the Secretary of State has dismissed the appeal.

Thanks to Tradescant blog, the full report of the Bondway appeal can be found here.

2 Saturday planning consultations and 8 Albert Embankment / Florian Place (second attempt application)

A consultation will take place concerning the proposed new development (to be known as Florian Place) which will be situated on and around 8 Albert Embankment:

You can attend on Friday 11th Feb (14:00 - 18:00) or Saturday 12th Feb (10:30 - 13:30), and it will be held on 8 Albert Embankment, SE1 7SP.

Be careful though because the consultation on Vauxhall Square (the "twin tower" development from CLS) will also take place on Friday 11th Feb (10:30 - 20:00) or Saturday 12th Feb (10:00 - 14:00), and that will be held at 1, Nine Elms Lane on the 19th floor of the Market Towers building, SW8 5NQ.  

I know... two planning consultations over the same two days seems like a really bad plan, especially considering that some residents will be interested in both proposals...  Looks like Saturday morning is a write off!

Tradescant has already written on the new plans for 8 Albert Embankment, but I fear there's nothing new to add, since all of the news relates to last year's proposals.  You might remember I posted briefly on the old plans for the site, which were submitted in March last year.  Before the public had much chance to comment on last year's plans, local Princes Ward councillors made it clear that, in their view, the development did not contain a high enough percentage of social housing.  Consequently, Native Land (the developers) possibly assumed that they were on a hiding to nothing, and withdrew the plans for 7 new buildings ranging from 5 to 16 storeys (see old planning application for reference).

Now though, a new year presents a fresh opportunity to submit money-making schemes to Lambeth Council, and if the Council can sense extra income, they're likely to approve sensible submissions.  The delay might even have benefited the developers on account of local residents suffering from planning proposal burn-out.  Certainly, whatever Native Land are preparing to submit will not be as contentious as the Bondway proposal, Kylun's Vauxhall Island site or CLS's Vauxhall Square...  So, what are the plans?  You can probably sense that I'm waiting with baited breath....

But... No... It's still a secret....  The proposals look as though they won't be released until tomorrow and I think the press release on the CLS website is the old one from 2010.

Vauxhall Square - CLS propose a new twin tower development in Vauxhall

(Image taken from the excellent Telegraph.co.uk article about Vauxhall Square, which you can read over here)

CLS have this morning revealed their intention to advance an 850,000 square foot development on a 2.9 acre site in Vauxhall.  They have an informative website which enables you to comment on the current Vauxhall pedestrian experience and you can see additional images of the proposed site.  The scheme would comprise two "twin towers" (both exceeding 40 storeys) and a huge public square.  Included within the proposal is some form of giant walkway, which would allow pedestrians to cross the Vauxhall gyratory. The grand plan includes 240 units of student accommodation, a 300 bed hotel, 400 apartments, 80,000 square feet of retail space/restaurants and a 6 screen cinema.  This development has been named Vauxhall Square and is intended as a gateway into the new Nine Elms and Battersea area.

A public exhibition for the Vauxhall Square development will take place next weekend(!) on Friday 11th February (10:30 - 20:00) and 12th February (10:00 - 14:00) in the neighbouring Market Towers building (1 Nine Elms Lane), and a planning application is expected to be submitted in late 2011.  The building is hoped to be completed by 2017 (all very ambitious, considering the planning application has yet to be submitted).  VoHo (ha!) residents will be delighted to note that CLS's MD, Richard Tice, is expecting the development to "establish the area as the next major London growth zone".  (Clearly nobody has thought to mention the massive over-crowding at Vauxhall tube station, so we'll stay really quiet, ok).  On a more positive note, a Property Week article about Vauxhall Square states that CLS have "launched an international design competition" to "link the different streets and sites across Vauxhall Cross".  That's clearly a highly desirable goal to prevent Vauxhall descending into a set of major wind tunnels.

The development appears to involve the demolition of a building currently on the site and I've marked its approximate position on the map below.  Vauxhall Square is marked in blue and I've added Vauxhall Island site (in green) to show context:

This proposal should not be confused with the other four Vauxhall schemes; Vauxhall Island site (submitted, awaiting approval), Bondway Vauxhall (pending enquiry result), Vauxhall Sky Gardens (approved) and Vauxhall Tower (approved),

CLS are the firm responsible for purchasing 100 Tyers St from Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre and relocating it, a positive development for the Community Centre.

And finally, a quick "hello" to all of the traders who will likely drop in this morning to check whether CLS stocks have increased in value.  [Edit 13th February... they did!  By a considerable amount and probably will some more tomorrow.]  I'm sure those shares will now be uber valuable, and so would encourage you to continue to invest in the UK property market, which is likely to be close to the bottom at present.

Fentiman Road incident - male in his thirties died in suspicious circumstances

A 36 year old male died at a property in Fentiman Road, Vauxhall at approx. 5:30am on Monday 31st January.  Police have named him as Anthony John Bates.  The death, reportedly due to head injuries, is being treated as suspicious and another man, Gary Speight (aged 30), has been charged with his murder. Police have been guarding the property on Fentiman Road in Vauxhall since the morning of February 1st, and were still at the scene a day later.  At least 6 forensic officers investigated the flat wearing face masks and full protective clothing.

The property is still covered in police tape and the northern end of Fentiman Road (opposite Vauxhall Park) was initally closed off. The incident was first linked to a gas leak, but this has not been confirmed. The information above has been released through the Police Press Bureau. However, police on the scene have been advised to tell residents that a "serious incident" has taken place, but are not giving out further information.

Two Brixton Road cycle accidents and one motorbike accident on Clapham Road

I have no confirmed reports, but Twitter users (and London Fixed-gear & Single Speed forums) are reporting two incidents involving cyclists on Brixton Road.

One incident occurred at approximately 7:20am at the top of Brixton Road/Camberwell New Road (near Oval tube station) and involved a male cyclist, a bus and a petrol tanker. The road was closed for the rest of the morning, but the incident is not reported to have been fatal.

Another accident occured this morning further south on Brixton Road, involving a female cyclist, which is again not reported to have been fatal. Stockwell News mentioned an incident allegedly concerning a cyclist and a lorry (which may be the southern incident). I hope the cyclists did not sustain major injuries.

In addition, another Twitterer/Tweeter/Twitter user (what is the correct noun?) reported an incident involving a motor bike on Clapham Road outside Greggs and Pearl Pharmacy at about 11am this morning. That's down in Stockwell, so I can only refer you to Stockwell News for further information.

I'm particularly concerned about the number of road accidents in and around SE11 at the moment, and further concerned that many of the incidents seem to involve cyclists. (Please don't use my blog to moan about bad cycling. There are bad cyclists and bad drivers and both are to blame). I'd call on TFL to consider segrating the cyclists from the rest of the vehicular traffic, but I know that major arguments exist between cyclists as to whether this is the safest option.

I haven't (and cannot) report all local accidents since many are not serious and do not make the news, but people frequently search Lurking about SE11 for mention of incidents so I can see that they are frequent. I'm fairly certain that there was a road accident on Bowling Green Street yesterday, and I know that there was a road accident on Kennington Road last week, involving a police vehicle. I know that Lambeth Council are investigating the possibility of 20mph zones, but I do not imagine that these would include the major roads (Kennington Park Road/Clapham Road or Kennington Road or Brixton Road or Camberwell New Road) and these seem to be becoming accident hot spots. Does anybody have any further data on accidents or information about the wellbeing of the cyclists mentioned above?

Former Lilian Baylis building to be sold to developers and grounds to become a Community Sports Facility

The rumours wot fly around the Lambeth the grapevine posited that the former Lilian Baylis School would be one of the first Lambeth Council Co-operative projects. No surprise there. However, a number of pertinent matters have arisen since I published my last article on the matter back in November.  A presentation was made at the KOV meeting on 1st November by Brian Dickens of Sports Action Zone, who was seeking a long-lease from Lambeth for SAZ activities.  

Consequently, the Old Lilian Baylis site was put on the agenda for discussion at a meeting of Lambeth Council Cabinet on 22nd November.  The Councillors were given this background paper as pre-reading.  A quick summary of the paper follows: 

* The Council proposes to work with local organisations on the Old Lilian Baylis to realise the site's vision.  Work has been progressing with North Lambeth Sports Action Zone (SAZ) and the South Bank Employer's Group (SBEG) who wish to develop the site as a sport and community facilitity.

* In order for SBEG/SAZ to gain funding, there'd need to be a transfer of ownership of former Lilian Baylis to a new development trust through a long lease.  The remainder of the former Lilian Baylis would be marketed by the council for mixed use development (to boost council funds) in Spring 2011 and would possibly provide additional community benefits

* If the SBEG/SAZ bid for funding fails, the Council will market the whole site for mixed use development, with a view to topping up the Council's coffers and/or provide additional community benefits in line with the Co-operative vision.


* The Council bears full costs/security for the former Lilian Baylis building.  This year, costs are forecasted at £482,000.  Unfortunately, only £190,000 was allocated in the budget.  This means that there has been a shortfall of a mere £292,000.  (Peanuts, really.  But, umm, I wouldn't want to be the officer that forecasted those costs.)  Apparently, work is being undertaken to reduce costs so that the shortfall is reduced to just £150,000.


* A portion of the site that would be handed over to SAZ/SBEG on a long lease is unfortunately a part of the site that would be valuable for development, and it's a bit that would reduce the income the Council could gain from the site significantly.


* The CommunityBuilders funding that would be used by SAZ/SBEG to develop the site would require that services and facilities are inclusive and open to everyone in the neighbourhood. 


* The Council must be assured that the hub will deliver wide community outcomes and how it might deliver other needs on the remainder of the site.  These needs could include a new nursery/children’s centre to replace the Ethelred Nursery and Children Centre.


* If the Council proceeds with the CommunityBuilders supported hub plan, it is proposed that a plan is developed in partnership with SAZ/SBEG to work with local residents etc. to refine the plans for the community hub and the development brief for the remainder of the site, along with the establishment of the development trust.

* The officers recommended that the Cabinet agree to the asset transfer of part of the site.  (Also, of note is the fact that one of the appendixes states that the Council might still seek to delist part of the site for the purposes of demolition).

So... at the Cabinet meeting on 22nd November, the Council approved the plan set out above and supported, in principle, an asset transfer if the Communitybuilders funding comes through.

After that, and shortly before I disappeared on holiday, I heard that a bit of additional behind-the-scenes last minute meeting and scuffling took place, but it clearly didn't stop the eventual planning application 10/04389/RG4 being processed, which you'll see reads as follows:

Change of use of part of the former school site to Use Class D2 (Leisure). Erection of a temporary two-storey building to provide community facilities and an office and the erection of a single storey building for use as a changing pavilion. Conversion of an existing sports pitch to provide two five-a-side football pitches, creation of athletics facilities (running straight, combined long jump, triple jump and pole vault runway with landing pit and high jump fan). The replacement of lighting to the existing floodlit tennis court, football pitch and (proposed) five-a-side football pitch, and new floodlighting to the athletics facilities. Installation of new gates between the site and the existing school building, provision of two disabled car parking spaces and cycle parking and removal of an existing tree.

As usual, you can leave comments (43 have already been submitted, which is rather curious even despite the size of the development), but in my view, the new facility sounds quite exciting.  (We all know that the "Co-operative vision" stuff has all been tagged on to the end of this plan. Obviously SAZ were involved with working on a proposed hub considerably prior to the invention of the Co-op Council, but I don't want to be all doom and gloom.)

I know that the Council still want to sell off part of the site for development, but in cash-strapped times that's understandable (if not excusable), and is mitigated by the provision of sports' facilities for the entire community, I think.  One point upon which local residents might wish to campaign is the use of the word "possibility" re. providing extra community facilities on the remainder of the "to be developed" part of the site.  Obviously, Ethelred Nursery/Children's Centre would benefit immensely from gaining a new building, and that's not a guaranteed part of the sparkly Co-Op vision, so it's probably worth lobbying for.  Thoughts?

Police tape around Walnut Tree Walk and Ethelred Estate

As I travelled into Kennington this evening, I noticed police tape surrounding much of Kennington Road, south of the Imperial War Museum with a policeman guarding the area.  A number of residents were denied entry to their properties in the location.  I received an email from a reader (thank you) stating that late this afternoon two muggings took place in Kennington.  (This is an unconfirmed report, and I've not yet managed to corroborate it).

The first mugging occurred in the lift between Scotson  House and Vantry House on the Ethelred Estate.  The victim was male.  The culprits were two young men who were seen wearing hoodies and face masks.  Shortly afterwards, another person was allegedly mugged on Walnut Tree Walk, although since (as of 11pm this evening), police are still at the scene, there is a possibility that the incident was more serious.

If you have any further information, please contact Kennington Police Station on 0300 123 1212.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes afoot at Kennington Park Business Centre

I've heard that changes have been on the cards at Kennington Park Business Centre for some time, but no further details were forthcoming.  The Kennington Business Centre has potential to be turned into a small local retail/commercial hub, which betters takes advantage of passing trade (at the moment, it's quite "closed", and although it contains a (weekday) restaurant, most people don't realise.  Consequently, I hope the following application is viewed positively. 

A development application (10/04188/FUL) has been submitted requesting permission as follows:

Landscaping / public access
* Provision of a new landscaped public realm accessed from Brixton Road
* Alternations to the main entrance of Canterbury Court from the existing courtyard. 
* Change of use to ground floor of Canterbury Court to shopfront elevations on to Camberwell New Road

Canterbury Court
*  Change of use to ground floor of Canterbury Court to provide Retail / Financial Services / Restaurant floorspace (2,085 sqm)
* Change of use to ground floor of Canterbury Court to provide Leisure floorspace (2,015 sqm)
* Change of use to ground floor of Canterbury Court to provide commercial floorspace (365 sqm)
* Change of use to first floor of Canterbury Court to provide commercial floorspace (2,382 sqm)

Chester House
* Change of use to ground floor of Chester House to provide Retail / Financial Services / Restaurant floorspace (115 sqm)
*  Erection of new single storey to Chester House to provide Retail / Financial Services / Restaurant floorspace (47 sqm)

Chichester House
* Third floor roof extension to Chichester House to provide commercial floorspace (886 sqm)
* Demolition of existing entrance block to Chichester House and Chester House and erection of a new 4 storey entrance extension


Edit:
And on the same site, guess who wants to open a new store?  Yup, you guessed it... our favourite supermarket giant wishes to further expand the Tescopoly.  Stockwell News reports plans for two new Tesco stores on Brixton Road, one at Kennington Park Business Centre and the other further south on the junction of Caldwell St (opposite Vassall Rd).  See more at, "Is Tesco eating Stockwell?".  Perhaps I should refrain from further comment on the basis of Dave Hill's article earlier this week in which he castigated those who have their shopping delivered by Tesco and yet criticise Tesco's ever expanding empire of Express stores.  Oh no, guilty as charged!  Dave suggests instead that people "reduce their dependency on supermarkets and spend more at the local independent shops they value".  Time to start shopping at Londis...

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

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

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

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

Mudlarking: trudging along on the bank of the Thames

A few weeks ago, Tradescant Road wrote an excellent post on the discovery of Mesolithic remains on the foreshore of the Thames.   The remains are around 6000 years old, which makes them the oldest known bits of rock in London.  Unfortunately, it's not entirely clear what they are, but whatever they are, we've got them in Vauxhall.  We could build a museum, and attract tourists to our very own M16, but unfortunately, the 6-pronged rock formation thing can only be seen at very low spring tides.  As luck would have it, today was a very low spring tide day. So... this morning I did a little lurking about on the bank of the Thames, taking pictures (with some other mad people) of some bits of Mesolithic rock, and also a bronze age (approx 3500 years old) jetty or bridge.

It's a really odd feeling, walking about on pebbles that are usually submerged, but I recommend others do it if there's another chance any time soon...  Perhaps I should have taken the advice of "viewing from Vauxhall Bridge", since mudlarking is an excellent way of getting filthy.  Maybe it's time to invest in some wellies.  Anyhow,  here are a few photos:

 Not having any idea what I was supposed to be looking for, I was first advised by a gentleman nearby that the Mesolithic remains were the two circular blobs you can see (the largest is near the bottom of the photo).  Naturally, I was regretting that I'd left my bed so early...

Fortunately, either the chap in question was wrong, or those rocks are additional pieces of the structure because I returned a little later to find a crowd gathered around two of the real Mesolithic rocks.  Also, a third rock was visible slightly beyond the second one in the water, but it was submerged and I wasn't able to photograph it:

This is more impressive.  This circular formation is thought to be a Bronze age Jetty or part of a bridge. (Vauxhall Bridge, or somewhere near is thought to be the oldest bridge in London.)

A lake of water left on the foreshore as the tide withdrew shows how uneven the river bed seems to be:

I like this view of M16 from the ground when it's usually only observable from the Thames:

One of the outlets from the River Effra (and also, presumably the sewer outlet).  I'm not sure whether this is the "Brixton" or "Clapham" outlet referred to in my post on the Tideway Tunnel.  We presumed that when the pressure rises from inside the gates, it pushes them open.  There was still a trickle of (clean looking) water running from this outlet and down into the Thames.  If you look carefully, you can see the "Effra" sign at the top of the handrail:

I like this photo because it shows somebody climbing down the ladder well below the line of the watermark.  (When he arrived at the bottom, we did advise that there was an alternative way up again via the ramp!):

This is another outlet on the west side of the bridge.  Again, I suspect it to be the sewer overflow outlet, but I'm not sure.  It could be another outlet for the hidden River Effra, but there's no sign to indicate that:

This piece of sky will soon be hidden by the St George Tower, so I wanted a shot from the river bank.  This view won't be available again (at least for a long time):

Could this be a Mesolithic mobile phone?  Or just one from the Bronze Age?

This structure (not to be confused with the Bronze Age jetty), I was told, is much more recent and likely to have been used by the ship building industry:

By about 11:30am, a crowd had gathered.  I reckon we saw about 50 people wandering around the foreshore today.  The duck bus did not stop to let the passengers take a look at the  bits of rock:

I assumed that these folk were going to sail over and take a look at the Mesolithic stuff, but they just sailed on by.  I don't think I've ever seen such a small sailing boat on the Thames.  You can see the north side of the Thames in this shot, but nobody was wandering about over there:  

In this photo, I was hoping to capture just how low the tide was today.  The water looked almost narrow enough to swim across at some points: