Northern Line Extension to Battersea: There are drawbacks, but a defence must be made

(Photo taken from 9th May Rail News article about the Northern Line Extension)

I've been meaning to comment on the Northern Line Extension for a while, but I've been taking time to formulate a view.  This may prove controversial locally (and I'm reserving any full support until the positions of temporary shafts are known), but I'm broadly in favour of the Northern Line Extension provided that the developers agree to certain stipulations around minimising disruption which are likely being hammered out at present.  (Clearly, the developers won't listen to me, but the local community is calling for relocating certain shafts, which may prove necessary!)  I will obviously blog about and publicise the campaign groups who are arguing the other point of view, but as a local blogger and public transport supporter, my view is generally favourable.  Before you go any further, you may wish to read further information on the NLE proposals at Treasury Holdings' Northern Line Extension site and/or complete their online questionnaire by the deadline of 17th June 2011.

The Northern Line Extension would see the Northern Line Charing Cross branch splitting at Kennington (it terminates at Kennington for all intents and purposes at present) with two new stops added to the branch, one at Nine Elms (on Sainsbury's site) and one at Battersea Power Station.  I like the idea of being able to get the tube from Kennington Park to Battersea Park, and of expanding the underground to overlooked areas in South London. 

My major criticisms of the scheme strategic and don't pertain to the developers.  The main issue that I have is that the proposed extension is not a TFL strategic transport decision, but a developer-funded initiative.  Ideally, for any extension, the tunneling equipment hire expenses should be allayed through a wholesale expansion, rather than a one line extension.  The Battersea stretch of Northern line could branch north of the river to Victoria.  The Northern Line tunnel should be expanded west beyond Battersea (which could receive two stations, not just one) to link with Clapham Junction rail station and then onwards to the district line.  Finally, the Bakerloo line is would prove a much more worthy candidate for expansion than the Northern line.  Camberwell, Peckham, Dulwich, Upper Norwood, Beckenham, New Cross, Lewisham and Catford should receive underground linkup with their overground railway stations.  The money is not there, but it seems that this is possibly through years of overlooking south London's Underground requirements, and it's a shame that this window of opportunity can't be made to do more than a minor two-stop extension.  This seems to be one of the criticisms made by a ranty-Anonymous insider on Vauxhall Civic Society, but the fact it would have been better to do a wholesale strategic expansion does not remove the good of expanding and adding two stations to the Northern line.  I remain unconvinced that everybody is so busy focusing on the Olympics that they're overlooking VNEB.

There is also a related issue that the proposed Northern Line Extension is of major benefit to Nine Elms and Battersea, and of less benefit to Kennington, which will experience quite high levels of disruption.  The money being used to fund the NLE could be put to better use to improve Vauxhall (and will result in the Vauxhall-end developers facing a heavy levy for a line less accessible to their residents).  Tradescant Road also makes the criticism (as does David Boardman of the Kennington Association Planning forum) that the NLE will be funded with private money that would have otherwise entered the public purse for amenities such as libaries, schools, health etc.  I think that criticism should indeed be admitted, but the NLE clearly costs above and beyond normal Section 106 costs and the developers must by statute provide certain public services.  I suspect that whether or not you see the NLE as a good thing will depend on how much you value the expansion of the Underground tube network into South London and whether you think this balances the disruption that will inevitably result.

We are hoping that Lambeth Council will ensure that Lambeth doesn't lose out and that Vauxhall gyratory issues are resolved (more on this in a later post).  I think that arguing that Kennington will be disrupted is a NIMBY issue rather than a major criticism of the plan to expand the NLE.  (Mind you, we haven't yet been told how long/if they'll have to close Kennington tube station for the development, and *that* might irritate a greater number of people than at present, but I suspect those people won't pay any attention to the issue until it arises, by when it will be too late to stop the closures!)  Wapping became a distinctly undesirable place to live for some commuters when its tube station as closed for an age a year or so back. 

I do sympathise with people who will be inconvenienced by the permanent or temporary shafts at Kennington but a straightforward utilitarian "greater transport good" argument can be made to support the NLE.  Successful oposition to the NLE would ensure that the development could not proceed at Battersea.  I cannot see that there is enough opposition at present, considering that most of it emenates from Kennington and Oval residents, to stop the very determined Treasury Holdings from regenerating their building.  I suspect that wider London sentiment would fall favourably with the dilapidated iconic Battersea Power Station owners to avoid the loss of a much-loved building.

I intend to write a second post re. the developers contribution at the KOV meeting that took place last night, and answered many questions that will be of interest to local residents unable to attend.

£588 million funding black hole in Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea infrastructure

Ok, so I've been a bit of a bad blogger recently, but sometimes I find I can't fit my real life work and spare time projects and activities into 24 hours so I periodically have to drop a few things. In light of all the cuts and planning and development etc. I'm going to try and catch up from where I stopped, so be prepared to be inundated for the next few days.

I left off back in April with a KOV meeting, focused somewhat on the Strategy for the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area, but as one commentator noted, I failed to cover an impromptu note from the floor detailing work performed by David Boardman (and others) from the Kennington Association Planning Forum.  I know that planning matters can be dull, but the big story here is that the KA Planning Forum claim that the funding gap in the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area (mostly on account of the Northern Line infrastructure) is not £58 million, as highlighted by the Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) (commissioned by the GLA and developers), but a whopping £588 million.  This is a major regeneration news story that has not (as far as I know) been noticed by the mainstream press at all.

I was going to try and write it all out to explain where the money is missing, but it was easier to develop the graph produced by KAPF and add a few explanatory notes.  As you'll see, the first graph shows an admitted £58 million funding gap, but the DIFS study didn't make it very clear that developers were refusing to fund £62 million of required police, health etc. spending and that £63 million funding was supposed to come from borrowing, despite the fact that Wandsworth Council don't like to borrow on account of it being costly to tax payers.  That means that the original deficit was closer to £183 million. You can see it all detailed on this first graph. See the penultimate page of the revised chapter 12 VNEB OAPF for the figures used in Graph 1:

Once the document had been out for a while, KAPF analysed it and found significant weaknesses.  They specifically  sympathised with the company asked to write the DIF study (Roger Tym and Partners) on account of their being asked to "believe a number of implausible things".  So here's a few reasons that KAPF think the developers are wildly optimistic on spend:

*  When working on funding for any transport project, the Department of Transport ask that an optimism bias be added.  This is to account for the fact that major engineering projects are unwieldy and expensive.  In the VNEB OAPF, £800 million was allocated for the Northern Line Extension.  But by the time the DIFS emerged, the optimism bias had been removed and the NLE had been reduced to £564 million (shaded light pink).  KAPF chose to add £130 million (a 23% optimism bias) back into the costs (shaded bright orange).

* Affordable housing was reduced in the DIFS to 15%, despite the fact that Lambeth's Affordable Housing targets are 40%.  If only 15% of the housing built was affordable, the developers would be able to raise a levy of £40k per dwelling.  If  40% of housing built was affordable, a levy of only £25k per dwelling is possible.  High levels of affordable housing would reduce the funding, leaving costs at the same level.

* By assuming lower levels of social housing, there has been an economizing of both healthcare and education costs.  In order to estimate numbers of children for schools, Wandsworth assumed a 10% child yield (1 child in every 10 properties), but child yield in Lambeth is currently 20%.  Wandsworth also removed 25% of children from their calculations on the assumption that they'd be educated privately.  KAPF think that if the midpoint figure of their estimates is used by both councils, a secondary school is definitely required.  That's another unanticipated £74 million (shaded bright yellow) on top of current education provision (shaded light green).  If KAPF are correct in their estimation, they also think that a primary school will need to expand to being four form entry.  If a new primary school is required, the costs go up further (this is not shown on the graph).

* The KAPF review of the infrastructure report goes into plenty more detail over other issues, but I want to provide a broad overview.  By far and away the largest problem is the lack of green space in the VNEB.  It is certainly deficient, and this was proved by the refusal of the Secretary of State to permit the appeal of the developers on the Bondway.  In the Mayor's Planning Framework, the linear park (a long green strip running from Vauxhall to Battersea) was intended to be 1500m long and 50-100m wide, a total of 11.3 hectares.  By the time the developers had finished with their Infrastructure study, they had reduced the total park space to 3.5 hectares!  Assuming it was still to be 1500m long, it would only be approx. 23m in width.  

The national standard for green space is 2.4 hectares of open space per 1000 people,  Lambeth's open space projections assume that the entire Borough will eventually have 1.44 hectares of green space per 1000 people.  If the VNEB were to be constructed with a park of only 3.5 hectares, the area would be unproceedable.  To reintroduce the missing hectares, and bring the VNEB up to the level of Lambeth's most space deficient ward (Ferndale), would cost the developers, by KAPF's  estimations, £200m (shaded bright pink).

So, on a basic reading by a local planning forum, you can see that the sums don't add up.  A deficit of over £588m is not something that can be papered over.  I know that there have been more developments on the VNEB (including the leader of Lambeth Council coming on board for the project) since I updated last month, so I'll blog about that in due course.

Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Consultation and Thames Tideway Tunnel Consultation

Remember that if the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) development goes ahead, even in outline form, it's reckoned that over the next 20 years, a town with the population equivalent to that of Welwyn Garden City would spring up between Battersea Power Station and our own beloved Vauxhall (or VoHo, as we're now supposed to call it, darlings).  That's a sizable increase in population that will affect services and infrastructure for those living on the edge of the area.  If you live in SE11, SE1 or SW8 , you might be interested in attending the largest event yet (in Wandsworth), where Wandsworth Economic Development Office will present a number of boards laying out the proposals in more detail.  The poster (above) says that the Embassy Quarter, Battersea Power Station, New Covent Garden Market and others will all be present on the day (which has never happened before).  We might even find out what would happen to the Nine Elms Sainsburys.  I'm told that a 3D model won't be present at the exhibition, but that the boards will include details of the VNEB development at the Lambeth end, in Vauxhall.  (It would be useful to actually have a consultation in Vauxhall, but considering that the development is mostly taking place in Wandsworth, I imagine that's too much to ask).  It's a much needed regeneration for Vauxhall and Nine Elms, but I'd recommend careful scrutiny, and I'm still not convinced that locals are aware of the size of what's to come.

I've spoken to the chaps at the Development Office who've also confirmed that a number of Lambeth Councillors and Lambeth planning officers should be present.  This is a chance to ask questions about whether Vauxhall Underground Station has the capacity to carry all of the extra residents at peak time, and also to ask who would be funding the proposed Northern line extension.  If nobody can be found to fund the extension, you might like to ask whether alternative modes of public transport have been considered.  The organisers have asked for people to register for the event, but I think it's still possible to show up on one of the days.

In my last post, I mentioned the Thames Tideway Tunnel and suggested why I think local residents should not oppose it.  However, I didn't give details of where the consultation will take place.  I really don't know how many readers attend local consultations.  I do, but then I'm a bit strange :). 

One commentator pointed out that the nearest events are in Covent Garden, Bermondsey or Battersea, which is not really useful for Lambeth residents.  To be fair, there are are two preferred sites around Battersea, so I can see a good reason for consulting over there, but I don't see why Bermondsey (which only has one site, the same as Vauxhall) was chosen.  Still, I'm sure there's no conspiracy, is there? :-)

The Battersea public exhibition will take place from Thursday 7th October - Saturday 9th October (10:30 - 20:00 Thurs and Frim and 10:30 - 17:00 on Saturday) at Battersea Arts Centre, Lavender Hill, Battersea, SW11 5TN.

The Southwark/Bermondsey public exhibition will take place from Monday 11th October - Tuesday 12th October (10:30 - 20:00) at Berodmund Community Centre (Main Hall), 177 Abbey Street, Bermonsey, SE1 2AN

Feel free to peruse the list of other Thames Tideway consultation events if you can't make these two...  And thank you to the person that pointed out that the Tideway Tunnel would not be necessary if human sewage was trated at point of generation in each household, and everybody dug holes in their gardens and installed the necessary plumbing.  There's a risk that that would take considerably more effort than building the tunnel itself! :-)

Battersea Power Station and the tube...

Well, the news and outlook are not good for the much publicised tube station.

Indeed, to be fair, prospects are not good for the redevelopment of the Battersea Power Station either. The Guardian is reporting that Real Estate Opportunities, the financier of the project, is suffering from a huge debt of £1.6bn. Their auditors say that there are "material uncertainties" about the future of the business. It's all down, apparently, to the failure of the Irish property market.

It's probably too early to sound the death toll on the Battersea project yet, but the outlook doesn't appear to be bright, and the article acknowledges that the previous owners of the site have not made much headway. Don't look forward too much to the Battersea/Kennington Northern line connection until the economy improves, and even then, another firm might buy the site and change the plans entirely.

Battersea Tube Home?

There's an article in today's Kennington news journal about the proposed tube extension to Battersea, which would apparently be paid for by some developers who want to put a vile building next to the lovely (but somewhat derelict) power station.

Here is a picture of the lovely Battersea power station, taken from Wikipedia:



Here is a picture of the vile building (with the power station to the right) that some people want to place in Battersea:



Now, as a self-confessed public transport geek, it would be grand to see a development of the Northern Line from Battersea to Kennington, but I want to raise a few issues that I think may be shared by other Londoners:

1. The wonderful development of a new tube station at Battersea, funded through private finance, is a waste of money when one considers that the tube could be extended much furthur than just one stop. Once one has begun digging underground, and arranged labour, material, machinery and civil engineers, one might as well go a lot furthur south. If TFL could get government money for tube expansion (or even tram lines), we wouldn't have to be so grateful to private finance for such suggestions as new bits of tube.

2. Extending the tube by one segment of line and one station just does not justify the monstrous building that has been suggested. I'm actually in favour of new housing/buildings in London, but I have one condition for all buildings. Buildings should not be considerably higher than those already surrounding them. SE11 has got off lightly because of the historic nature of its buildings, but poor Elephant and Castle is about to be dwarfed. So if you want the rocket monstrosity meant for Battersea, put it in Canary Wharf, not Battersea. I do not object to new housing, but I don't understand why new housing has to be very tall skyscrapers. Such skyscrapers are simply not designed to promote community or shared life, and I think that they're a really bad idea.

3. If the height of the building were not bad enough, there is the beautiful power station to consider. Would anybody really contemplate building the rocket next to Buckingham Palace, or Big Ben? No. Of course not. But because this is South London, and the area is in need of regeneration, it's considered that anything goes...

I really am in favour of the tube station at Battersea, (although I have no idea how long it might shut Kennington tube and/or the Northern line for) and in favour of regeneration (if it can be proven to benefit the disenfranchised of Battersa), but that building is too large a price to pay.

And finally... I discovered a really great little map, posted by somebody on the Urban75 forum, which shows all of the proposed transport links in London by 2016 if, by some miracle all of the funding were secured. The proposed Cross River Tram line is in a groovy purple colour.