Planning updates on Kylun Towers and 8 Albert Embankment - KOV meeting September 2011

A full agenda for the Kennington Oval Vauxhall Forum, which kicked off with apologies/reasons for absence from TFL and Treasury Holdings.

Absence by TFL re. the Vauxhall gyratory plans:
Lambeth Council are leading on a visionary exercise which will precede any other work by TFL. Carolyn Dwyer, Divisional Director of Public Realm, is the contact concerning the visioning work at Lambeth Council. Once the Council have undertaken their consultation, TFL will be able to present further on the future of the gyratory. [You can read my last post about Vauxhall gyratory options here.]


Absence by Treasury Holdings re. the Northern Line Extension:
Treasury Holdings' current consultation on the NLE finishes at the end of September and they can't release information prior to sign off and analysis, so there's nothing to add until that point. [The most recent statement on the NLE adds little to the discussion, but can be found on the TH site.]


Vauxhall Island Site - Kylun Towers
In other news, the developer Kylun have appealed, concerning their proposed Towers, to the Secretary of State against Lambeth Council on account of non-determination. To read the plans for the Kylun Island site in the middle of Vauxhall, see here. Vauxhall Society recently wrote a rather withering post on Lambeth's inability to come to any decision at all about the site for a whole 13 months. The Kylun discussion will go to committee on 18th October and there's still time to make submissions. Apparently, the hearing won't be held until April 2012.

Cllr Jane Edbrooke emailed me a few weeks ago with Lambeth Council's "official line" on Kylun which comes from a Lambeth Council "spokesman":

"We have already made clear to the developer that we are refusing their current application and we’re surprised by their comments and actions. Senior Cabinet Members met with the partners of Kylun Towers in July and were very clear about Lambeth’s expectations for the site. It is crucial that the development is to the benefit of the established local community and general public realm and these aspirations must be met in any planning application."

8 Albert Embankment - Fire Brigade Site
I posted back in August about a re-submitted planning application for 8 Albert Embankment which contained a few changes on the previous application. However, it often takes a while for community groups to notice certain applications and to get organised, and as you can see from the comments of the August post, that is the case concerning 8 Albert Embankment and Whitgift TRA.

Last night at KOV, we heard an eloquent and impassioned plea from the residents of Whitgift House of Whitgift Tenants and Residents Association who are concerned about the impact of the 14 and 22 storey towers on their homes and Lambeth High Street Recreation Ground. Whitgift House is the building which would be most impacted by the re-development of 8 Albert Embankment. In winter months, the ground floor and first floor of Whitgift House would only get one hour of sunlight each day. Their "anti"campaign is, they noted, supported by Cllr Mark Harrison, Cllr Steve Morgan and Kate Hoey MP. All residents in Whitgift Hosue have signed up to the campaign against 8 Albert Embankment, and indeed, every resident (excepting one) has put in an objection to the development.

The TRA's main objections concern over-shadowing, blocking of the light, too much parking and low levels of social housing in the development. Whitgift residents wanted a third assessment on the light issues, but after speaking to Planning Aid, they've been told there's no point as Lambeth Council have performed their own assessment. The Council's assessment says the minimum standards have been transgressed but that that's fine for Whitgift House because they're within an urban environment! There are only 25 flats in Whitgift House. Additionally, residents are arguing that 8 Albert Embankment falls within Vauxhall Conservation area, containing amongst other bits and pieces, the Royal Daulton Building and thus arguably constitutes a separate area from the rest of "main" Vauxhall where tall building has been ear-marked by the Mayor. (Whether this will work is debatable on account of the permision granted to 81 Black Prince Road, but we shall see...).

Un-co-operative Lambeth Council: Friends of Lollard Street Adventure Playground, Kennington found it closed this morning



 
I'd just like to draw readers' attention to a letter on Lollard Street Adventure Playground published on the Kennington Association news blog this morning from Anna Tapsell who is both chair of the Kennington Association (KA) and Treasurer of the Friends of Lollard Street Adventure Playground (FOLSAP).
FOLSAP have been working for some time to prevent the closure of Lollard Street Adventure Playground and to think about how it might be run in future, given the reality of Council cuts.

It seems, according to the letter, that the Council agreed at a meeting on June 16th that £45,000 was available to potentially be allocated to a local management group were they to put forward a viable business plan.  FOLSAP report that they did develop a business plan, but were later told at a meeting on 18th August that, contrary to the previous information, £45,000 would not be available to a local management project. 

Clearly the Lollard Street Adventure playground project had to go to tender, but FOLSAP are alleging that their experience with the Council has not been one of co-operation.  Given that our Co-operative council are not appearing terribly co-operative, perhaps constituents of other councils should take heed.  FOLSAP say the process began too late and that councillors/officers have presented mixed and non-transparent messages.  They raise a question as to the "propriety of the tender process"

In Lambeth, the letter asserts, having such playgrounds open is a "safeguarding issue", given that many parents leave their children there in place of after-school care.  Most worryingly, when Ms Tapsell visited the playground this morning, she found:

"just a scrawled ungrammatical note pinned to the gate saying that it would be closed this week. No explanation or other information about when it might be open. Two little boys were there with their table tennis bats. Their parents were back at work."

Additionally, the playground will now, according to the letter, only be open for one session on a weekday!  It won't be open on Saturdays at all.  Back on 7th April, at the KOV meeting, Cllr Harrison re-assured local residents that Lollard Street Adventure Playground would not be closing.   Arguably, one could liken a playground that runs for only one session a week to a closure in everything but name. Moreover, there are still questions to be asked about why it's closed this week, and why no information is available concerning its re-opening.  Indeed, opening the playground for such limited hours is likely to lead to it becoming less popular.  See the case of the Kennington Park Adventure playground in which two playgrounds will merge on to one smaller site to make way for housing, given alleged non-use of the land... where is it?  Ahh, yes, this is what I wrote back in September 2010:

The defence offered (by the architect) in favour of consolidating the [Kennington Park] 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)...

Even more worrying, given recent civil unrest near these parts, is Lambeth's failure to understand that adventure playgrounds are a public place off the streets for children and young people to gather.  To fail to allow local organisations any say in the supposedly mutual process of running facilities is distinctly un-co-operative and short changes residents.  Short-term cost cutting of youth services will likely only lead to further social unrest.  A recent report from the Department of Education notes that a quarter of excluded primary school students expelled in 2009-2010 were from Lambeth.  There's no point in having police officers visit primary schools to warn children away from gang life if no alternative facilities are in place for their use and their parents are not at home to supervise on account of being at work.

It would be really good to see whether our MP still has any teeth when it comes to influencing the local authority and working for the good of less-affluent north Lambeth residents.

Lambeth Council axes Vauxhall Nine Elms community forums in favour of expos costing £7500

If you want to know more about the VNEB and the intensive development to take place in the area over the next 20 years, I recommend you take a look at the gigantic Mayor's Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

Back in May, I wrote a post about why the Kennington Association Planning Forum think the VNEB proposals are fatally flawed.  Essentially, they think they've identified a £588 million funding blackhole in the infrastructure. £200 million of that is the value of land that the developers might have to purchase to ensure the area is brought up to Lambeth's minimum green space standard.  We've yet to hear how the issue of green space might be addressed...

In the meantime, a community forum for consulting the local community about the whole VNEB area was launched by Lambeth's Nine Elms Vauxhall Strategy Board.  An initial wide-area-community forum meeting was held in Jan 2011.  It was discussed briefly at the Kennington Oval Vauxhall (KOV) meeting in April, where Maureen Johnston noted that she'd been involved in discussions on behalf of KOV about the possible shape of the forum.  Later, a second community meeting took place in May 2011, (announced by Princes Ward Labour councillers) here.  I didn't make it to that, but the minutes indicate that much of the meeting was taken up with strongly worded requests by residents to remove the Vauxhall gyratory (more on that in the next post) and residents' opposition to the Northern Line Extension.  The Friends of Vauxhall Park also wanted to engage with working groups on the matter of the linear park. 

In the meantime, PAPER NO. SB 11 - 35 from the VNEB Strategy Board meeting in June allows:

"The previous approach for community engagement presented by Lambeth to the Strategy Board on 26th January 2011, involved setting up an area-wide community forum that would meet a number of times of year."

Sounds good.  Sounds sensible.  Area-wide meetings ensure that lots of stakeholders meet together to ensure that no area is getting a better deal than another.  And even better, as was agreed by the earlier forums...

"The proposals also suggested establishing themed community working groups alongside the strategy board’s working groups, that would then have representatives from the community sitting on them."

Perfect.  It would be possible just to go to meetings about areas of the strategy that you felt affected you eg. transport or school or health.  The experts in the community in each area would be able to attend specific themed working groups.  But, that is no longer to be because...

"There would... be an onus on community representatives to attend numerous working groups covering technical matters that may not deal with key policy issues and concerns they are most interested in."

Umm, no.  That was the whole point of the themed groups.  The report does note, correctly, that community groups don't work according to strict borough boundaries (thank goodness). It also cites resource issues, but aren't we all trying to learn to do things co-operatively and on a shoe-string?  The new idea doesn't look cheap.  Consequently...

"It was agreed that establishing a formal Community Engagement Group with community representatives and others partners should not be progressed."

Oh dear.  What might the real reason be?

"The likelihood is that such a Group would involve a small number of the more active community groups." and "it would risk excluding hard- to-reach groups."

Well, yes.  That's democracy.  That's co-operation.  If you're active and engaged, and attend meetings, and track what the council is doing, and submit feedback on planning matters, and attend library seminars etc. etc. etc. then, yes, a group is likely to contain engaged citizens who have something to contribute to their local community.  How dangerous!  How radical!  I acknowledge that the Council needs to work hard to contact and dialogue with hard to reach groups, but that shouldn't be at the expense of those who conscientously show up to meetings and participate...  So, what's the new plan?

"Therefore, an alternative approach is recommended where the Working Groups would present to the community at a variety of ‘events’ in or close to the Opportunity Area."

A long-term die-hard community activist friend of mine said to me, "oh yes, councils love Expos, where everybody turns up at different times and note inconsequential views on little post-it notes that people stick up on a board. These are often off-topic and later ignored.  It allows the Councils to say that they've consulted, but not have to sustain any deep level of engagement, participation or criticism with community groups".  Does that sound about right?

"The events would tend to be more informal than a conference or committee meeting with presentations but more like a ‘symposium’ with the aim of collecting the views on a key topic from a wide range of people..."

We can now look forward to two tiers of events.  Cross-borough VNEB expos and community style events costing £5000-£7500 a time (tier one).  Tier two (at least at the Lambeth end) seems at first to be slightly more acceptable, with a localised "Lambeth Community Forum" which will be shaped by existing forum leaders (probably Kennington Oval Vauxhall forum) until you find out that attendees are a rather select band of people... "by invitation to existing forum leaders and leaders of recognised community groups."  Great.

The Lurker isn't impressed.  Anybody know what's going on?  Well word on the ground is that it was due to Cllr Sally Prentice's move from Regeneration and Planning to Employment and Enterprise.  The new Regeneration and Planning Committee member is Cllr Nigel Haselden, so perhaps he's the one to ask.

Can anybody offer a defence?  The expo idea appears to me to weaken community group input and atomise attendee participation.  It will be difficult to establish consensus or disagreement, as people will just turn up and leave again without having to listen to one anothers' views.  Difficult questions and hedging answers won't be heard by an entire room of people, and it's not exactly possible to minute conversations at the Expos.  Very convenient.

Community Forum for Vauxhall Nine Elms - April KOV Meeting (Part 2)

Click for Part 1 of the VNEB discussion at April 2011's Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall (KOV) Forum meeting.

As you might have observed, the VNEB discussion at April's KOV meeting was extensive. The second section consisted in an update from Maureen Johnson about the part KOV will be playing in consultation, and questions from the floor to Cllr Mark Harrison.

Community Forum – April 2011 Update

Ms Johnson noted that since the January 2011 community meeting on the future of the VNEB Community Forum, she (on behalf of KOV) had met with the Stockwell Partnership. There then followed a meeting with Sandra Roebuck, Paul Ewing (Regeneration), Clive Fraser and the chair of a tenants' forum to map out the shape of a Community Forum. No decisions were made, but an exploration about informing residents took place and proposals were suggested in outline form. KOV and Stockwell Partnership have begun the process, although Ms Johnson was at pains to state that neither body will be the VNEB Community Forum. KOV/Stockwell Partnership will circulate the proposed Aims and Terms of Reference for the new Forum, which will be open to community groups, but won't contain Lambeth officers.

Structure and future of VNEB discussions

The VNEB project will be led by a Strategy Board. Underneath the board, various working groups will exist. The working groups won't be open to the Community Forum as they're technical bodies that must contain Council Officers. Cllr Harrison interjected that the Strategy Board has committed that all officers in working groups will have a duty to report to the Community Forum. Ms Johnson noted that the VNEB project/forum will be part of a twenty year process!!

Questions/Observations

I really dislike audience members making long observations that ramble ever onwards with no constructive end, especially when people are badly informed. Consequently, I've not detailed all of the observations and those that appear as follows are in outline...

Qn Audience member 1: 'The removal of the gyratory must happen first because otherwise the regeneration will be rubbish.... I also recommend the monitoring of pollution around Vauxhall. Accessing technical information is a priority. A rough comparison between infrastructure in place at Canary Wharf compared with that proposed for Vauxhall would be instructive.”

Answer from Cllr Mark Harrison: 'Removing the gyratory as soon as possible is the priority. The reason CLS proposed their raised walkway, which we're not keen on (and probably won't happen) is because they say they can't develop their site until pedestrian flow is resolved. Sorting out the gyratory is essential for that site... Vauxhall Cross has terrible air pollution which points towards the necessity of sorting out the gyratory...'

Anna Tapsell (Kennington Association) made a brief representation on the lack of consultation or inadequacy of consultation on health and community policing on the Lambeth side.

Cllr Jack Hopkins (Oval Ward) observed re. policing that an original study had proceeded down Wandsworth Road to Clapham, including many of Lambeth's poorest estates. Yet, apparently, when the study was returned, it had a much smaller geographical footprint, since the cost of policing infrastructure for the original footprint would have been too great. On health, Cllr Hopkins added that he'd recently spoken to a Stockwell GP, who had observed that only certain parts of Lambeth PCT had been consulted on VNEB, and that there is massive NHS strain existing at present on Wandsworth Road.

Qn Audience member 2: 'How will we stop the Northern Line Extension sucking Section 106 monies from Vauxhall developments? Residents are being harassed by endless planning applications which indicates that developers, and not Lambeth, are setting the agenda...'

Answer from Cllr Mark Harrison: 'Ultimately, Lambeth is still the Planning Authority, and will request the infrastructure Lambeth needs. Local infrastructure will be funded before money is used for anything else. Lambeth will have to make a contribution to the Northern Line Extension if it takes place, but money won't be pumped into it if Lambeth doesn't get school places or Vauxhall Cross isn't made liveable. Lambeth is still the Planning Authority and can still negotiate its own Section 106 agreements.

One reason that so many Lambeth planning applications have been submitted is because the VNEB levies haven't been set, so developers are rushing in early. With every planning application processed, Lambeth are negotiating a Section 106 agreement (some of several million pounds), with all monies going to Lambeth. In future, the VNEB levy might raise money that would also go to Wandsworth. So, for Lambeth, early planning decisions might be good or might be bad. It's debatable.'

Finally, ex-Wandsworth Councillor Jeffe Jeffers observed that VNEB was “a 1970s plan being built in the 21st century” that was based on developer needs without an in-depth strategic analysis of London needs. He noted particular concern about the lack of industrial space in the proposal because the proposed Thessally Rd industrial space is tiny. He added that VNEB will consist of a series of high rise buildings for which the nearest lift repair business is 23 miles away!

Campaign to remove Vauxhall gyratory and Lambeth commits to 40% social housing in Vauxhall Nine Elms Area (Part 1)

The main part of the April KOV meeting concerned the future of the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area and plans for a Community Forum to work with Lambeth Council and other VNEB partners.

Cllr Mark Harrison (Princes Ward) spoke first by announcing his appointment on the VNEB Strategy Board to represent Lambeth Councillors. Cllr Harrison remarked positively, “We don't have a choice in the matter [of VNEB]; it will happen whether we like it or not”. The Strategy Board consists Wandsworth Council, Lambeth Council, the Mayor, TFL and the various landowners in Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea.

For ease of reading, I've divided Cllr Harrison's remarks into several sub-headings, so you can just read the parts you're interested in...

New Lambeth Officers for VNEB

Cllr Harrison reflected that, for the last few years, Lambeth Council had neglected VNEB and left it to Planning Officers. Lambeth have now appointed an executive director (Sue Foster) and a new officer (Sandra Roebuck) to focus on VNEB issues. The project, Cllr Harrison noted, should now gain strategic direction and focus upon Lambeth's regeneration.

Community Forum

Back in January 2011, local residents were invited to an initial meeting on establishing a VNEB Community Forum for Lambeth. Since then, Cllr Harrison noted that there had been a lull at Lambeth as the project was transferred from Planning to Regeneration. Lambeth Council hope that Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall (KOV) forum and Stockwell Partnership will work with Lambeth on community engagement. Indeed, the Community Forum will meet again in May [it was unclear whether this is high level members from KOV/Stockwell or all residents] to discuss a community engagement proposal from the Stockwell partnership, and be provided with an update from the Strategy Board.

VNEB Consultations Soon to Launch

Consultations are about to begin, one from TFL on the Northern Line Extension (9^th May), and one by Lambeth Council on the finalisation of Vauxhall's Supplementary Planning document.

VNEB Strategy Board transparency

Cllr Harrison remarked that he had persuaded the Strategy Board to publish all of their papers online (very good news!) so that residents can access information and the discussions will not exclude them.

Northern Line Extension Funding Paper

Cllr Harrison observed that the Northern Line Extension is pushing forward... An audience member interjected that the NLE represented a disadvantageous “split” on account of having to change lines, rather than an “extension”. [Actually, most trains on the Charing Cross branch seem to effectively terminate at Kennington at present any way.] Cllr Mark Harrison argued valiantly that the NLE was an advantage on the basis of increased train frequency, and reiterated, “It will happen whether we like it or not”. According to Cllr Harrison, a NLE paper has been commissioned on alternative funding options to Section 106 contributions. One idea is for tax incremental funding so that future business rates in Wandsworth could be used to pay for the NLE.

VNEB rebranding
More controversially (KOV audience members were in uproar), a branding exercise for the area has been commissioned at the behest of Wandsworth landowners. The Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area is felt to be a terrible phrase, so they want a better way of describing the area. Lambeth Council have made it that they will not be tied into its recommendations. Cllr Harrison felt that any branding produced would need to be acceptable to existing communities, which already have strong identities and histories, and cannot just be rebranded.

Social housing

Since the last strategy board, the Homes and Communities agency (social/affordable housing) has become involved in the scheme. The HCA will work out what government policy will mean for VNEB and enable Lambeth to deliver social and affordable housing. Cllr Harrison stated forcefully, “Lambeth is fully committed to 40% affordable housing target in all developments.” [The DIFs study says Lambeth is committed to 15%, but more of that in a future post.]

Future of Vauxhall Gyratory and Public Realm

Finally, the public realm working group chaired by Lambeth is under way. It will focus on improving Vauxhall Cross and “hopefully” removing the gyratory system as well as ensuring the Linear Park is a decent width and size. Lambeth Councillors have met separately about options for Vauxhall Cross gyratory. Cllr Harrison stated 3 options; “do nothing”, “do something”, and “remove the gyratory all together”. TFL have apparently put together a “do something” proposal [not one that residents are privy to, so that's something to request]. The councillors found it “quite impressive”, with plans to narrow roads, widen pavements, add pedestrian crossings, and improve public realm with trees etc. Cllr Harrison slightly hedged his bets saying that he thought [the TFL plan] “would make a big difference,” but then noted, “we're still going to push hard for removing the gyratory altogether.” The local councillors think that there will need to be a fundamental shift from Vauxhall being a motor vehicle junction to being a public space that prioritises people, bikes and buses. Cllr Harrison then admitted, “The Northern Line Extension doesn't particularly benefit Lambeth so at the Strategy Board level, we need to say, “you're [Wandsworth] getting your Northern line, we need Vauxhall Cross transformed”.

I hope to get Part 2 of this post written this evening; an update from Maureen Johnson (KOV Chair) and questions from the floor.

Also, there's a lot more local news to publish, but I'm currently on a short break so it will happen a little more gradually than usual!

Black Prince Trust formed to manage SAZ on Lilian Baylis site - KOV meeting April 7th 2011

I'm going to write a brief series of update posts because I've written up KOV (Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall) forum meetings in the past and I don't feel that the detail is necessary when minutes are available.

First up were the Sports Action Zone (SAZ).  Brian Dickens came to show a video of what's happening on their site (lots of aerobics and basketball) and testimonies from site users.  He spoke about how SAZ, with the help of Kate Hoey have set up a trust named the Black Prince Trust (incorporated March 14th 2011).  SAZ won the £2 million funding (I wrote about that here) that it needed to be able to set up the trust, lease the land from the Council and use the parts of the former Lilian Baylis as a sporting base.  That's very good news, as it least ensures that much of the site remains for the use of the general public.  The Black Prince Trust will have the job of overseeing the way SAZ makes its mark on the grounds of the former Lilian Baylis school.  Of course, the rest of the school will be put on the open market, but given that everything (including the car park) is listed, I'm not sure buyers will be chomping at the bit.

Kate Hoey noted that she, Cllr Lorna Campbell, Patricia Moberley (former Chairman of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS foundation), Brian Dickens (SAZ) and Ann Bodkin (governor at Ethelred Nursery) have been appointed trustees of the Black Prince Trust.  There might have been some others, but the naming was rather haphazard.  Apparently, there is room for more trustees, but the trust had to be set up in a hurry so there wasn't time to consult.  The other "interested parties" (these weren't named), but I'm guessing maybe the Ethelred Nursery is one such have, according to Kate Hoey, formed themselves into a co-operative.

Anna Tapsell, representing the Friends of Lollard Street adventure playground felt that Lollard Street had been absent from discussions and that they'd not been incorporated into the plan.  She also noted that the future of the playground was precarious under the Council's plan to hand the playground to the voluntary sector.  Whilst Anna acknowledged that SAZ had spoken to somebody on site at Lollard Street, she felt that no discussions had taken place in a more official capacity.  Cllr Mark Harrison responded that Lollard Street won't be closing, but that ownership and management of the plaground would be transferred to the voluntary sector.  Kate Hoey noted that people would be angry if Lollard Street adventure playground closes and noted that whilst there are funding difficulties, these are nothing that "can't be sorted".

So... good news for SAZ... I'm still hoping to hear more from them about what they are offering in terms of being able to advertise their programs to readers here, but they do a fantastic job at supporting local children in fitness and health and encouraging them to further their study and stay of the streets.  Also, the above frank exchange of views seems to answer a previously unasked/unanswered question on Lollard Street Adventure Playground.  It 's not due to close, but it will be moved into the voluntary sector.  Not a bad way to go, as long as the voluntary sector doesn't just turn into privatisation by the back door.  At least it's a way to continue providing services in the wake of Council cuts...

Celebratory Feast at Oval Famers Market and Royal Scarecrows, Peter Tatchell on Environmental Campaigning, Vauxhall Easter Egg Hunt and more...

A few diary dates... I'm trying to keep up and add them to my Lurking about S11 calendar, but I'm not brilliant so will summarise them here.  As ever, there's a lot going on...

Vauxhall Gardens Estate Residents and Tenants Association AGM
Thursday 31st March, 6:30pm - 9pm at the Carmelita Centre (corner of Jonathan St and Vauxhall Walk)

Celebratory Feast at Oval Farmer's Market
Saturday 2nd April, 10am - 3pm at Oval Farmer's Market (grounds of St Mark's church in Oval)

Unveiling of royal scarecrows at Cottington Community Gardens
Saturday 2nd April, 12 noon at Opal Street, Kennington Lane, SE11 4HZ

Peter Tatchell to be interviewed on human rights work and environmental campaigning
Tuesday 5th April, 7:45pm at Oval House Theatre

KOV Forum
Thursday 7th April, 7pm - 9pm at St Anne's Resettlement Hall, 40-46 Harleyford Road.  (Entrance in Vauxhall Grove, SW8 1TD)

East Egg Hunt in Vauxhall Park (for children aged between 1 and 10)
Saturday 9th April, 10:30am (registration) for 11am start.  The event is for children aged between 1 and 10 only.

Kennington Gardens Society Spring Show
Saturday 16th April, 9am - 3pm at St Anselm's Hall

Royal Wedding Street Party
(This one isn't certain yet, but it looks to be fun if they manage to pull it off...)
Friday 29th April (time TBA) at Tea Hosue Theatre (formerly Queen Anne pub in Spring Gardens)

Reminder: KOV meeting tonight with accompanying agenda

I'm just issuing a quick reminder that there's a Kennington Oval Vauxhall (KOV) forum meeting at 7pm (or 6.30pm for 7pm) at St Anne's Settlement Centre, Harleyford Road, (entrance in Vauxhall
Grove) SW8 1TD.  

The Sainsbury's Towers and Vauxhall Square 'twin towers' development are both on the agenda so feel free to read the history so far.  The rest of the agenda appears below:

1. Welcome, introductions and apologies

2. Minutes of previous Meeting (1 November 2010)

3. Vauxhall Square - Richard Trice of CLS Holdings - For more info, visit www.vauxhallsquare.co.uk

4. Proposals for Sainsbury's store, Nine Elms

5. Vauxhall Opportunity Area and community involvement - Cllr Sally Prentice

6. Vauxhall Opportunity Area Planning Framework – Amendments to Section 106 Funding Chapter

7. Chair’s Report

8. Board and Forum members’ updates

9. AOB

10. Date of next scheduled meeting: 7 April 2011

What is the Vauxhall Business Improvement District and why is Kennington excluded? - KOV meeting writeup - Part 4

Continuing our series of "unofficial minutes" from Kennington Oval Vauxhall Forum (KOV) meeting (last month), today's write-up concerns the Vauxhall Business Improvement District (BID). The Means regeneration agency spent a spokeman, Mr Giles Semper to inform us of the proposed Vauxhall BID.  The Means promotes itself as "a regeneration and 'smarter travel' consultancy" and they like to think they're "good at making town and city centre areas better places to live in, work in and move around".  So, it's official... If the announcement of the rather expensive and ludicrously tall St George Tower hasn't regenerated the area and turned it into Voho, then we will be VoHo by the time we've been "improved".  This, of course, might not be such a bad thing.  Vauxhall is clearly the naughty school boy of the Thames who needs extra tuition and a good caning to show improvement and it does look a little rough around the edges at times (I blame the interchange), but couldn't the wider Kennington area benefit from this initiative?

I wondered from whence this sudden Business Improvement District enthusiasm in Vauxhall had emerged.  It seems that it's a Lambeth Council initiative, and Lambeth Council commissioned The Means to run a feasibility study on the matter. Anyhow, Giles Semper has a lengthy history working in the area (from 1997 - 1999), first co-ordinating the Vauxhall Employer's Group and working to regenerate St Peter's Church/Heritage Centre, which then hosted "Vision for Vauxhall" meetings.  The Means might be set to benefit from such an enterprise because they currently run the Better Bankside BID in London Bridge/Blackfriars.

On the face of it, a Business Improvement District sounds like a great idea.  Kennington Association, some months ago, tried to put Kennington businesses in touch with one another in a network, to keep in touch with the Council etc and to encourage a greater degree of co-operation. So, Lambeth Council's foray into this area should be encouraged, surely?  Maybe.  For local businesses, this promises to be a relatively mixed blessing (there's a question of cost versus benefit).  My concern is that the entire endeavour appears to be rather partisan, and biased in favour of regeneration of the Thames (favouring visitors rather than residents), rather than improvement of the area overall.

The problem is that the area which has been chosen for the BID is rather exclusive, and drawn up so as to include certain businesses that would be capable of large contributions.  Notice how the map that The Means have drawn up for the Council (marked by the orange line) stretches itself to include the Oval and Tesco, but fails to include any of the blue lines (drawn on by me) which are local and much valued shops used by local (and much valued) people.

The very long blue line, drawn at the top of the map, represents Lambeth Walk, a street that cis sadly neglected, but would be a fantastic place (especially the south end) to develop a joined up strategy for improvement.  The blue T-shape in the middle of my map indicates Vauxhall Street and Jonathan Street, that contains the Post Office which our community successfuly retained.  On those streets exists a mini cab firm, a hairdresser, a convenience store, and indeed, our very own butcher (P J Frankland) as well as other shops!  The lowest blue line on the map includes all of the busineses on Kennington Road (many estate agents and restaurants), and heads downwards to include Kennington Road post office, Barclays Bank, a funeral parlor, barber, insurance broker, a solicitor, a betting shop and several convenience stores.  Why are we not able to look at a business "improvement" district that includes Kennington?  The Oval is the Kennington Oval, not the Vauxhall Oval, and if the thing is going to extend down Kennington Lane to encompass Tesco, why wouldn't it go any further down?  Finally, the line at the bottom of the map shows where Kennington Park Road lines up with Clapham Road, and illustrates another parade of shops containing, amongst other, The Oval Lounge.  Why is the Oval cricket ground included when those businesses are not?  Essentially, because it would pay for the BID.  But the Oval's inclusion in a Vauxhall BID potentially excludes the possibility of its inclusion in a Kennington one, and thus the money is all directed at the Thames.

The following is a shortened version of what Giles Semper had to say:

"A BID is a company owned and led by businesses in a specific area, and it tries to improve that place as a commercial location.  A BID can only be set up if all businesses in the area vote in favour of it at a referendum. The organisation is funded by a tax which the businesses impose on themselves, which is a compulsory payment after a successful ballot.  Everything that the BID company does has to be extra to services provided by statutory providers such as police and council.  There are successful examples of BIDs down the South Bank; Team London Bridge, Better Bankside, Waterloo Quarter Business Improvement District; covers The Cut, Lower Marsh etc."

"The Means have spoken to 85 businesses (day and nigh time economy) in Vauxhall to discover the key issues in the area. The issues are similar with the night time businesses having additional issues to contend with.  4 key issues have been identified in the area:

1.  Protecting the area (fear of crime, environmental problems).
2. Engaging Vauxhall (bringing businesses together with residents around common themes, perhaps creating new opportunities for children and young people).  The businesses are keen to engage residents.
3.  Promoting the area as a visitor destination.  Historically, Vauxhall has been cut off from the rest of the South Bank.
4.  Transforming Vauxhall:  The traffic interchange and the environment around it.  The businesses are keen to work with other partners to see a better environment in Vauxhall."

"The tax on the business is based on the rateable value of individual commercial properties.  It's usually a percentage (1% or 1.5%).  The Means think that 250 of the largest businesses in Vauxhall could generate about £600k - £700k per year of investment, or £2.5 million to £3 million over the 5 year life of the BID."

"The Means have learned through experience at Baknside that any BID which thinks it can be parachuted in without reference to the residents has got a nasty shock coming. There are two resident board members in Bankside and desk space is gievn to the Bankside residents' forum.  The residents sit on all of the "theme groups" and the businesses are very active in a range of community engangement projects, some of which are very successful."

Tbere then followed an extended period of time for questions:
Q: Could you describe something that has been achieved in another area by a BID?

Giles Semper : 'There are 105 BIDs in UK and 25 in London and they're all different.  Most  BIDs tend to start with cleaning, greening and safety.  In Bankside, a team of dedicated cleaners have been put in place (seen in pink vehicles).  The cleaners tackle the kinds of problems that the Council's cleaners don't tackle eg. cobbled streets, tree pits, gum and jet washing.  Many BIDs operate some kind of uniformed service on the streets eg. rangers or wardens.  In Bankside, we have 7 wardens who operate 12 hours per day.  In Bankside, our best known project is the Bankside urban forest which is a design framework for the public realm between Bankside and the Elephant & Castle.  It's a partnership between the Council, the BID, Tate and some of the land owners, and challenges anybody that wants to develop to improve the standards of the public realm and develop to a high quality.'

Q: If a BID is set up, and is succesful in years 1 to 3, and businesses think it's great, but in the latter years, the businesses don't think it's good value for money.  What mechanism is there for them to end the agreement? 

Giles Semper: "The renewal ballot has to happen after 5 years.  The maximum term for any business on one ballot is 5 years.  Then follows a renweal ballot. The lesson from the US where these things were dreamed up is that they're usually more popular than less popular on renewal (and there hasn't been an unsuccessful renewal ballot in the UK yet)."

Q: Does it include Kennington businesses?

Giles Semper: "We haven't yet talked to the Kennington businesses to find out whether we should be one big thing, rather than two smaller ones."

Q: It's great that you consulted 85 businesses, with their different priorities.  At least some of the businesses want to get rid of homeless people and beggars, but the centre of Vauxhall is the centre of some major homelessness charities.  How will you link with those, rather than having the BID be a way of cleansing the area of people who live there?

Giles Semper: "The Bondway, Big Issue and other homelessness providers would be members of the Business Improvement District.  They would have as loud a say as any other party.  Our experience on the issue of homelessness in Bankside is that residents sharing their specific view that they don't want the homeless purged from the streets.  In that case, we work very closely with the Council's street population outreach team, and the approach is about housing people, and helping people, and not about kicking people out.  I do take your point though, because that's an endemic issue for Vauxhall.  The Chief Executive of the Big Issue did say to us, "do we not risk being the problem, rather than part of the solution?"  Those issues are on the table."

Q: I live quite close to Thames Reach.  I see homeless people who defecate in the corners of our parks.  I can't understand the idea of /not/ wanting to purge the streets of homelessness.

Giles Semper: "There are people who can address this issue with more knowledge than I can.  The Mayor has been trying to address the issue of homelessness pan-London."

Val Shawcross:  "One of the biggest problems we've got is that the E10 accession nationals; Eastern European workers who came to Britain to work, are not entitled to public funds or help.  So, when they fall homeless, they are not entitled to be given public housing, support or social security.  Lambeth has a contract with Thames Reach, Southwark with St Mungos, and there is some good professional work trying to outreach to Eastern European nationals, and where possible, to give them proper support to be repatriated and get into work, and deal with their problems.  People do not want to be living like that.  It's not just a housing issue, but an economic crisis."

Q: If new companies started in the Vauxhall area, would they have to sign up to being part of the BID, and are costs dependent on size of the business?

Giles Semper: "They would be brought in automatically. The businesses with bigger premises pay more than those with smaller premises.  A shop on Kennington Lane would pay £300 - £400 per year to the BID.  The police, the biggest employer in Vauxhall, would pay £80,000 - £90,000 per year.  Our largest payer in Bankside is Royal Bank of Scotland, who pay about £90,000."

Q: Would the developers building the big towers be contributing to the pot of money? 

Giles Semper: "It's currently the occupants, rather than owners who pay.  It's the other way around in the States...  The legislation to create land owner BIDS is being consulted on, and the mechnaism to tax owners, rather than occupiers may soon be available.  It would be a good one for Vauxhall!"

Q: Do you get more votes in the ballot if you have a larger rateable value?  If you're Tesco, do you get more votes? 

Giles Semper: "You have to win the BID ballot on two counts.  It's all on turnout, rather than constituency.  you need 51% of turnout by number and by aggregate rateable value.  So you add the rateable values together, and you need to get 51%.  So, the larger occupiers will have more influence on that part of the vote."

David Boardman (Kennington Association Planning Forum Chair) made a few comments and asked some questions: 

"1.  Is there any prospect of raising additional moeny for the BID in the Vauxhall area?  Is it amenable to Section 106? 

2.  People are clearly worried about crime in the area.  If I were the businesses, I'd be talking to the Borough Commander to say "put your resources where the crime is", and I wouldn't need to pay for extra wardens.  When the Council has had money in the past for Park Rangers, they've decided to give the money back to the police because they provided a better service for security.  Wouldn't it be better to pay for your own police, rather than wardens? 

3.  Kennington has its own Business Network so one doesn't need to have to have a BID to get businesses to talk. I'm not clear that the benefits of a BID are significant, from the 1%-1.5% raised, without drawing in extra funds. 

4. The main problem of Vauxhall is the gyratory.  Interesting that TfL will talk to businesses, but doesn't have the bottle to come and talk to the people.  We are concerned that TfL won't speak to the people who have the problem with it.  It should come to this forum for the community's views. 

5.  I have some reservations about the geographical coverage.  Why is the Oval inside, save for rateable value?"

Unfortunately, the Chair noted that there was no time to answer those questions (it was a very full agenda), but I'd be happy for anybody with knowledge about the proposal to add some comments to this post.  So, there we have it.

Is Mutuality privatisation by the back door? Co-operative Council Q and As - (KOV meeting update - Part 3b)

This post is a commentary and write-up from the KOV meeting that took place on 1st November at Vauxhall Gardens Community at which the Council Officer, Mike Wiltshire, was present to explain the purpose and end of the proposed co-operative Council for Lambeth.  The first post (which is basically the Council's elaboration of what the Commission have been reviewing) can be found here.  This post is a compendium of questions that were put forward by bemused Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall forum audience members (otherwise known as the Kennington Massive) to Lambeth Council about how the co-operative council might eventually appear.

Questions are often unclear and mumbly, and like in all public meetings, consist of the half-baked views of some quite strange people.  I've ruthlessly cut, summarised and de-waffled so that broad summaries are in single quotes, and direct quotes are in doubles...

Qn: 'I'm concerned... There was a lot of jargon....  You're consulting on things you should really be doing any way... You're looking at spending money on consultation on answers that should be relatively obvious...'

Mike Wiltshire:  'I wouldn't disagree that we should be doing this as a matter of course.  When we speak to people from different parts of the Borough, the ways they want to be consulted are different.  The point of this piece of work is to find the ways that people want to work.  Some prefer using area forums. Others want something more innovative eg. a local community group to come and manage a process.'

Questions: 'It would be useful to have more information about how this will run in practice and how we could contribute to the ideas about how it could be run... Could we hear about how local people get involved?' and 'We can organise collectively in neighbourhoods, but what does the council think we can personally and collectively contribute... What sort of interaction do you want between the public and yourselves?'

At that stage, you can see that the questions above (and more) concerned what a co-operative Council might look like, with all of these services effectively sub contracted-out, and poor Mr Wiltshire, who had suffered at the hands of the Kennington-massive was looking a bit drained, so Cllr Jane Edbrooke jumped to the rescue...

"These Co-op ideas were in our Labour manifesto.  This officer is taking a lot of questions, and I hope to come in with some answers... We're trying to say that we don't assume that services are run in the best way that they can be run.  We know that there's some great expertise out there.  We're saying that if you can run a service better, we'd like to catch that... It's about making people realise that services might not be run by the Council any more or that they can run them themselves...."

And then, controversially, Cllr Edbrooke went on to note that we have an excellent co-operative venture in our midst, at the heart of the Oval Ward...

"I know that people have been speaking to those that run the [Triangle] Adventure playground.  It's a controversial subject at the moment, but the playground is run very well.  How can we run that elsewhere?"

Controversial subject?!  Well, yes.  For those that don't regularly read this blog, you ought to know that Lambeth Council are currently taking legal action against the Triangle Association to evict them from the site, in order to make room for a school expansion.  So, that might not have been the best example to choose re. co-operative working!

But before anything further could be said, Mike Wiltshire grabbed the reigns again:

MW: 'At the moment, we provide youth services through youth clubs in the Borough.  The new process would be to review available funding and decommission the service if it's ineffective.  We'd then begin a new commission process and say to residents; "This is what's currently provided.  This is how it's working and these are the problems with it.  What expertise and what knowledge do you have to improve youth services, and how would you like youth services to operate in this area?"'

And then a question about whether any of our services are protected...?

Qn: At what point would the Council welcome applications?  Are there any no-go areas, or is any Council service open to that?

MW: Lambeth Council are currently drawing up a list of pilots to commence in February 2010.  The mechanisms of applying haven't been worked out in detail, but each year the council should be looking at specific service areas as part of the Council's budgeting cycle.  The last word from Steve Reed was that there are no no-go areas, including social care.  If you have an idea as to how a service can be delivered better, the Council want to hear about it...

And then somebody raised the question about whether the Emperor was wearing any clothes...

Qn:  What if the community don't step up, and they say "we'd like to see the Council continue to provide the service they have been providing.  We don't think, on any given matter, that we can do any better".

MW: 'Then that's fine.  That's part of the conversation."

But I wonder... is it fine?  If the community don't step up, and the Council don't have any money, then we're not going to have any local services.  Could we end up, I wonder, in a position where 3rd sector organisations (or, more likely, the private sector) run everything with just a thin layer of accountability connecting them with the Council?  I'm astonished that this move is coming from a Labour Concil since I cannot see how it's any different from Conservative/Lib Dem central government policy.  Today's Financial Times notes Unison's position on public sector workers being given the "right to provide" by selling back services. "Unison, the health union, attacked the ideas as a route to 'backdoor privatisation', claiming big business was likely to take over mutuals that failed or move in as contracts were renewed".  Well, precisely.  Here's what I think will happen.  Lambeth Council will make all (or most) youth service (or whatever) employees redundant.  The employees will be invited to form not-for-profit mutuals and put together ad-hoc youth provision.  The on-the-ball types will form small organisations, sell their services back to the Council, but won't have to pay their workers anything like minimum wage, and will have to reduce their services to skeletal because the Council will end up under funding them.  If the mutuals fail to perform (or make a living), the Council will not be easily held responsible, but will re-tender and the service will privatise.  Naturally, larger providers will be preferred because they're better able to keep costs  low.  I hope I'm proved wrong.

Mike Wilkinson clarified that the move towards co-operative working is more complex for statutory services eg. education.  Non-statutory services such as arts, culture and sports services offer more co-operative flexibility.  One of the "big ideas" that the Commission undertook to review was "time banking".  Apparently, in Cardiff, you become involved in the local children's centre, health service or youth service and then, as a result of giving time, you accrue credits on discounts for leisure services, cinema and theatre, "so you can have a menu of rewards to choose from.".

Val Shawcross who was also present (not sure why, but we had no Hoey) stood to made a quick comment.  She acknowledged her membership of the Co-operative party, and added that she felt the word "mutuality" had been absent from the conversation. She added that the presentation had been wrapped up in traditional "officer style speak" about consultations (she was right there).  But then she amusingly noted, "There are lots of goods models of how people run things amongst themselves.  Some of them are officer models.  Greenwich Leisure, one of the most well known leisure providers in Lambeth was set up from amongst the staff of Greenwich Leisure Services department, and was set up as a co-operative..."

At that point, I couldn't believe my ears!  The second suggestion for a co-operative (after the Triangle, which Lambeth are trying to close) was Greenwich Leisure, who are not exactly flavour of the month at the moment.  A quick glance at their website reveals... the Astroturf in Kennington park is still not fixed.  The Onionbag was not happy, having bought their leisure card, only to find many GLL leisure centres closed.  It might not be GLL's fault, but leisure would not have been my first choice to illustrate how co-operativeness might work..

Val Shawcross finally added, "We've got some great models of co-operatives in Lambeth."

I think here that it might be worth highlighting a piece questioning the co-op that I glimpsed back in the Streatham Guardian in August.  I quote, "...Jeff Jeffers, chairman of Lambeth co-operative development agency, said of 49 co-ops formed in the borough in 1971, only three still existed."  I don't necessarily doubt Val's word, but we probably need to ask questions about longevity.  Perhaps 1971 is too far back, and institutions aren't meant to last that long.  Perhaps the co-op route is a reasonable option for short-term initiatives.  My fear is that co-operative groups and mutualisation is just privatisation by the back door.
I don't want to throw a spanner in the works.  I'm not against co-operative working or co-operative societies.  The Council may well be /opting in/ to a very positive model of working.  It would be great to have local people taking additional responsibility for the wellbeing of their communities, but...  I don't want the Co-op Council or Big Society rhetoric to prevent people campaigning against cuts.  I'm afraid that the word "co-operative" is being used to cover up a covert privatisation without even those who are passionately involved realising that they're on a hiding to nothing.  Take a look at the words of.the Chief Executive of the Co-op group, Peter Marks, who admitted to the Guardian last year that he was a capitalist...

"At heart I am a capitalist as we have seen that other systems don't work. But the trust in banks has gone. The Co-op was not deemed sexy - we were old-fashioned because we took deposits before loaning money. But old-fashioned is the new cool in banking."

With one breath, it seems that "old fashioned" is cool again, both in banking and in local authority government, but in the next breath (same Guardian article)...

"If another person says to me 'I can remember my granny's divi number', I could get arrested for physical violence.  That's old baggage, people are always looking back. We are a modern business now."

The question is, can Lambeth Council be "cool" and "old-fashioned" without "looking back" at "old baggage"?  Cam Lambeth be a modern co-operative Council, or will it end up ushering in a greater era of privatisation under the noses of an unsuspecting public, who think that co-operative means, well, co-operative.

Is the Council Opting-In or Selling out? The Co-operative Council - (KOV meeting update - Part 3a)

Several months ago, Jason Cobb, prior to his move, highlighted the risks of the co-operative council for the entire Borough.  Now that he's left for the wilds of deepest Essex, I'll try and keep tabs on how it will affect our hyperlocal patch, but trust me, this won't be the most exciting of posts...

I was hoping for clarification when I learned that Lambeth Council Policy manager, council officer Mike Wiltshire addressed was to address the KOV on the co-op proposition at the beginning of November.  Mr Wiltshire clearly knew his stuff, having been involved with the co-op council project since its starting point in February 2010.  After he had given a run-down of work performed so far, I'm not sure that anybody was more practically informed about what the co-op council might look like.  Question time proved a little more illuminating, but only a little...  Here follows a summary of what we heard (with my commentary added later in square brackets []):

The co-op idea was introduced due to Labour's desire to change the way services are provided and develop them more collaboratively, as well as being a way to provide quality services, despite the budget cuts from central government.  A white paper was published in May 2010 showing the Council's initial thoughts.  After that, a committee was set up chaired by Head of Lambeth Council, Steve Reed, which consists of residents, other councillors and members of national organisations. [I'd have said it's a little light on residents, but never mind...] They've received evidence from community groups, national bodies, private/public sector companies etc. to learn how the co-operative council should be delivered and are now deliberating on that evidence.  A final report, setting out the Commissioners' recommendations is due to be published in January 2011.  That report will start another 3 month consultation process.  At that point, they'll say, "when we talk about the Co-op council we mean these specific things" and see whether their recommendations are supported.  Lambeth Council will produce its response to the commission in May 2011 and will set out any recommendations it might want to accept, reject or amend.  [Any the wiser?  I wasn't.  But it seems to work quite well if you're involved in providing "consultation" services, something that's probably quite lucrative in these times...]

According to Mr Wiltshire, the commission has obtained evidence on 5 key areas, as follows...

1.  Leadership:  Two important questions have been asked: "What type of leadership should the council provide politically?" and "How can the Council be a better leader of civil society?"  The majority of people who have responded to the Commission have provided a clear message.  I quote...

"You're fine giving political leadership, but actually, you're not a particularly good community leader.  You don't listen particularly well...  If the Council are serious about this, there has to be some fundamental change to the way the organisation works... in partnership, as opposed to an organisation which attempts to consult, but doesn't do as well as it should do".  

It is thought that addressing such a matter will be a major challenge for the Council.

2.  Services:  At present, there are problems with the way services are commissioned.  Partnership is not handled well.  Commissioning and  procurement processes would need to be changed, so that the Council could be a "co-producer".  Questions arise about whether the council should be providing services themselves or whether they should be moving to different providers?  Might a social enterprise, charitable or 3rd sector organisation be more effective at delivering a service?

If an organisation shows they can deliver a service more effectively eg. youth services, under a co-op model, the council should support the organisations as opposed delivering it themselves.  To give an example, the Council has commissioned a gang intervention service named Exit.  Apparently, having a third sector organisation working intensively with children has been far more effective in drawing them away from gang involvement than traditional youth services, so the council are asking whether, if a 3rd sector group can be far more innovative, the council might commission such providers directly?  [It all sounds great, but one wonders what will happen to traditional youth clubs that are not "in vogue" at the moment, but are valuable because they're institutional and not fleeting.]

3.  Incentivisation:  People need to be encouraged to become more involved in local public service provision.  The Council want to know whether more citizens can be involved in such delivery and are trying to identify a "range of mechanisms" that would suit people.  Mr Wiltshire admitted this would be challenging because surveys so far have shown that a lot of people are already quite active in the community and the people that aren't have made the choice not to be involved for various reasons.  Consequently, it was acknowledged that trying to find a way to incentivise such people will be tricky.  [It does beg the question of whether, in the end, it might not be quicker, easier and cheaper for the Council to just run the services themselves.  But I suppose the answer to that is that there will be no money... I really dislike the idea of incentivising for voluntary work, as it seems to me akin to bribing.  Perhaps the Council would claim it's just a way of saying "thanks".]

4. Public service management:  How can the Council  manage services more effectively and enable front line officers to innovate and find new ways of delivering services?  At the moment, apparently, Lambeth Council  have "quite a controlling risk-averse culture".  The commisioners are looking at ways to try and change the culture.  They're also looking at joint-management, and asking questions such as; how can the Council more effectively join up services with the police or health providers?  Much work is already performed with Lambeth First partnership, but the Council seek to integrate services more widely.

5.  Financing:  At present, the Council try to co-ordinate budgets with other public service providers. The co-op council hope to try to centralise funding so that council, health services and  police don't just align budgets, but pool them centrally.  It seems that some of the ideas coming out of central government are broadly supportive of the notion.  [Which makes me wonder whether it's all just about cuts, cuts and more cuts].  The Commission is also looking at alternative way of funding/financing services considering a reduction in public sector funding. The Council are looking at ways of drawing in social and private sector finance to continue to fund services.  [All Council services will have to be financed somehow.  Note today a report that suggests Lambeth will consider proposals for an "opt-in" paid-for garden waste removal service and charges for bulky waste collection.  I fear a return to fly-tipping, so I'm hoping they've some kind of social finance scheme up their sleeves.  I've not a clue what "social finance" might be!]

I've split this post in two because despite editing, once I've added the question-time and some of my comments, we're looking at an essay-length write-up!  Continue reading if you want to see the questions that were asked as a result of this presentation....

Refurbishment of Vauxhall station and surrounds (KOV meeting write up - Part 1)

Paula Haustead, a representative from Network Rail (first on the agenda) spoke about the improvements due to be made to Vauxhall Station. There were accompanying slides, which I requested on the night, and which should eventually be added to the text below. I felt that Ms Haustead spoke clearly, was informative and handled the Kennington Menace quite well (see below).

Network Rail consider that the main entrance to Vauxhall station, facing the bus station is fairly dark, and are looking to make improvements to the way that the station is perceived in the local area and to make it more accessible. (All good news. I had no idea that any of this was due). The refurbishment of Vauxhall Station falls into four separate Network Rail programme categories.

The National Stations Improvement Programme (NSIP) project is money that the Department of Transport have given to Network Rail nationally for improving small and medium sized stations. Vauxhall has been identified as an appropriate station to receive funding, and the programme will be delivered by Network Rail, but undertaken as a partnership project in conjunction with South East trains. Network Rail are looking at putting in a new station concourse, and they're also looking at realigning the stair access into the London Underground station. The Network Rail commercial property division hope to refurbish the arches adjacent to the station at the same time, and put in a restaurant or a supermarket (that's where the Waitrose rumours enter the picture).

In terms of external work, the arches at the front of the station will be smartened and improved. A new glazed canopy will join up the exit from Vauxhall Underground station and Vauxhall Rail Station, providing a dry route between the two. The station canopies covering all of the platforms are in a pretty poor state of repair, and Network Rail intend to do renewals work to those at the same time as lift work. Improved drainage will also be undertaken. Station power (which there are issues with at the moment) should be improved by the installation of a new sub station.

Internally, the existing stair access from Vauxhall Station to the railway platforms is very steep, and some resurfacing of the steps has taken place recently. However, the plan is to put lifts into Vauxhall Station.  The arch adjacent to the ticket hall contains a brick structure (I've not noticed it), which is an existing lift shaft. Several old lift shafts at Vauxhall are capped at platform level, but will need to be rebuilt as part of the project since they're currently too small. The shafts are now only visible from the top of platforms 7 and 8. The lifts have been out of use since postal access was required at Vauxhall! (Does anybody know when that might have ceased?). Network Rail are also hoping to break through the arches and open two new areas within the station, installing an additional ticket barrier (I think, although hopefully the plans will clear up this matter) so that passengers can circulate through two brand new areas into the station. In terms of their Access for All project, Network Rail are looking to put four new lift shafts up to each of the railway platforms. (There are no plans for a lift down to Vauxhall tube station, but I imagine that that would be a matter for TFL). Network Rail will also put tactile strips on all of the platforms so that people who are blind or visually impaired can more easily identify the platform edge.

The whole project is only in outline design at the moment, and will enter detailed design in January 2011, but Network Rail have already been talking with Lambeth about Planning. Permission is already secured for the lift project, but a full planning application will be submitted so that local people will be able to comment on the National Stations Improvement Programme, the canopy area and the adjacent commercial lets. Some elements of the funding have yet to be secured, but Network Rail are working closely with Lambeth to resolve the matter. Funding is in place for all elements except for the National Stations Improvement Programme. However, work for both Vauxhall and Earlsfield stations is being tendered for at the moment, which should improve efficiences and reduce costs. The two projects together will cost approx. £20 million. (It's a shame they couldn't do Waterloo as well, but no doubt it will take a lot of money to bring those old Eurostar platforms back into use, and that's another political battle). The contract is a "design and build" contract, which means that certain elements will be designed by the contractor once they've come on board. The aim is to complete all of the works by October 2012, although certain elements will be delivered earlier.

Some of the funding for the improvements at Vauxhall will be brought in through Section 106 and European funding. Clive Fraser (beleaguered Lambeth Planning Officer) confirmed that some of the Section 106 money was banked, and the rest should be banked during the lifetime of the project. Practicalities for releasing money are being discussed at present.

Now, on to question time... One audience member asked a sensible question about whether access to Vauxhall Station from the South Lambeth Road (Oval) side would be improved, on account of the entrance tunnel being closed quite frequently. Ms Haustead responded reasonably that Network Rail do not control when the access is open or closed, but that it is the job of the train operating company, and acknowledged that the entrance is sometimes closed on account of it being used less frequently. Fine? Well, not really, but if it's up to the train company to resolve, there's not a great deal that Network Rail can do. Did I mention that the Kennington and Vauxhall Menace were out in full force? Another person felt that it was highly "highly unsatisfactory" to say that improved access from South London Road was not possible when Network Rail are supposed to be improving access. Ms Haustead noted that the entrance from the south side would not be changed at all and confirmed that as it's physically and structurally intact, but that the rest is not up to them. The point about having to walk the long way around was repeated ad nauseum, and Network Rail were told that they /have/ to look at this point (despite it not being their responsibility)!

An anwer to one question revealed that the facade of the building will be cleaned and repairs made. Another question, regarding Access for All, yielded information that (as well as the lifts), a second wide-aisle gate will be installed in a new gate line, which will be added to the station. At the moment, disabled people are unable to access the station, so one person asked whether that part of the work might be delivered first. Unfortunately, there appears to be some kind of issue re. delivery of the refurbishment work because the arch in which the lifts will be installed has to be used as a work site, so to make the project move more quickly, the commercial arches might be started sooner, not for commercial gain, but because they, along with the canopies, can be accessed more easily. Platform extensions will eventually be looked at, but not during this project.

Cllr Jane Edbrooke (Oval Ward, Labour) spoke up to ask about planning and highlight that there's a plan to place a supermarket at the bottom of the Bondway tower (if that ever gets the go-ahead), and asked for joined up thinking on that point. Another audience member asked about whether secure cycle parking would be delivered, but Network Rail say they are unable to expand the parking on account of lack of space.

I think we can conclude that the refurbishment and renewal plans for Vauxhall Station are not momentous, but are somewhat overdue. It had never occurred to me that wheelchair users were unable to use the station at all (a naive ableist oversight), and consequently, I hope that accessibility will be a priority issue. Quite frankly, I welcome any changes that might improve the main body of the station, so commercial units and increased waiting space is a welcome development.  Now we just have to wait for the removal of the Vauxhall interchange :-)

There were numerous items on the agenda at the 2 hour KOV meeting, so expect more posts on Co-Op Council and future of former Lilian Baylis etc.

Advanced notice - KOV Co-op Council Discussion & Thames Tunnel Consultation and

This is just a quick post giving advanced notice of three community gatherings.

Firstly, in view of the announcements of the Government's Spending Review, and the speculation that Lambeth Council will lose £70 million, some notion of Labour's Co-operative Council will soon become a reality in Lambeth.  Local public sector job cuts are likely (but we probably won't know the detail for a few months) and whether you call it Big Society or Co-operative Council, the result will be fewer services spread over the same (or greater) number of people.  According to Local London, considerations about pooling services such as road repairs, social care, rubbish collection, libaries and adult education between Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Councils are under way.  I've no idea what any of this might look like, but there will be opportunites to ask questions at the next KOV meeting on 1 November at 6:30 for 7pm.  The venue is to be the Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre, 100 Vauxhall Walk, SE11 5EL.  Also announced at the KOV meeting with be "interesting news" about the future of the former Lilian Baylis school site (not sure how that will fare with all of the cuts) and apparently, some discussion of improvements planned for Vauxhall overground station.  It seems to be a rather full agenda so expect the meeting to run late.

Secondly, thanks to the good Cllr Harrison, a consultation will take place re. the Vauxhall Thames Tideway Tunnel ventiliation shaft etc. on the Albert Embankment in Vauxhall.  The consultation will be held on 6th November from 10am-4pm at Park Plaza Hotel, 18 Albert Embankment.  For more information about the tunnel, see my article "What is the Tideway Tunnel is, and how does it affect Vauxhall?".

Lastly, thanks to a commentator earlier in the week, some of you might be interested to know that former MP and local resident, Chris Mullin will be speaking at the Durning Library on Thursday 21st (tomorrow) at 6.45pm.  £2 is requested as a donation for refreshments.  The Times' Rod Liddle noted that Mullin's recently published diaries (A View from The Foothills) were "The most valuable set of diaries to emanate from the now interred corpse of new Labour; the most revelatory and also…the most entertaining."  Make of that what you will.

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 :)

Vauxhall Island Site - KOV Meeting Part 2 (and a meander on to Lambeth Council Housing)

I blogged about Chief Superintendent Ephgrave's appearance at the Kennington Oval and Vauxhall forum on the 9th of June, last week.  But the other segment of the meeting mostly comprised another presentation and chance for questions and answers from the developers of the Vauxhall Island site.  This is the second time the representatives from Kylun Ltd have consulted the community in a public forum, and, better still, encouraged a free-for-all Q&A session.  I'm not going to pretend I suddenly welcome tall buildings, but as their architect commented, "we've always seen this as a location for tall buildings" and the design is considerably more discreet than some of the others presented to the public.

Additional info on. Vauxhall Island Site plans:

The architect opened the discussion by noting that between the buildings, they hope to place an enclosed site and that the commercial spaces would act as provision for local  people and not just residents.   The developers have been meeting with representatives from local parks and other groups and have identified the arches under Vauxhall bridge as opportunities for investment.  Kylun Ltd have also been asked by TFL to look at the possibility of an under the road crossing.  It wasn't entirely clear, but the matter of some additional pedestrian crossings is also under consideration.  The developers say they are happy to fund these.  TFL, however, have to confirm the exact location of any crossings, and are naturally worried about slowing down the traffic (what a good idea!!).  TFL are looking at a range of options concerning the future (or non-future) of the Vauxhall gyratory.

If the building is granted planning permission, one of the ground floor units in the Vauxhall Island site towers (I believe the left hand tower, as you look at the diagram) will be an NHS dentist, and the other part of the floor will be a 70-100 seater digital cinema.  Considering that a swimming pool was unrealistic and out of the question, I'd have said that these are great options.  We don't have a cinema locally so this should make a great addition to Vauxhall.  Above that, there will be three floors of offices (see here for the earlier detailed account, but these could well be work-space type units.  There are questions as to whether these could be subsidised for start-up businesses.  The right hand tower contains a 180 bed hotel and there will be 291 private apartments (spread across both towers, I'm guessing), with a bar on the right hand tower at the13th floor.  There will be provision for 740(ish) bike parking spaces.

SE11_lurker's brief digression on public housing:

[And the affordable housing question?  That's a rather thorny issue, of course.  Lambeth Council have traditionally built huge amounts of public housing whenever they've had the chance, in the 1920s and 1930s, as well as after the war.  It's what keeps people voting Labour, after all.  I tend to be in favour, even though I'd never qualify to live in it, because I believe that the best communities are those where wealth is evenly spread.  I'm not a fan of the free market, left to its own devices, but I make my living from it, and so do many.  Consequently, I like the idea that private housing should fund public and affordable housing.  It seems fair according to a somewhat old-fashioned notion of justice.  But Lambeth has recently seen considerable gentrification in areas like Kennington and Clapham, which of course means that people start to raise the previously unheard of question about whether "we" want that housing, and as usual, the "we" who are asking should probably look around very carefully and ask "who is included?".  Kate Hoey made a very insightful remark at one of the hustings when she commented that single men are very rarely offered public housing.

As though on cue, the Streatham Guardian this week has published figures which suggest that 20,000 people are on the "mainstream housing waiting list", compared with 17,000 last year.  It does rather make one wonder quite where people are living in the meantime.  Does everybody on the list need to be on the list?  How on earth is the housing allocated?  Lambeth claim that their success in housing people just causes more people to apply!  But it should be noted that only eight councils nationally managed to build enough homes according to national requirements.   I doubt that central London, in the middle of a recession, is ever really going to manage to squeeze in all of those extra homes.  And "squeeze" is indeed the notion, because the buildings will have to grow taller to fit in the people.  Lambeth is only seven miles long, after all!  Probably the place to put the most pressure is on the empties.  I keep thinking that the Council ought to come up with a voluntary taskforce, capable of building, plumbing and wiring, who could fix up the houses for those in most desperate need (surely that would be a good co-operative citizen thing to do).  I'd give a Saturday to go and paint a rundown flat, and I can't be the only one.]

Kylun's statement on affordable housing:

It seems that 43% of the public housing would need to be family housing, that is 3 or 4 bed apartments.  Unfortunately, the "final proportion of affordable housing has still be agreed under Section 106".

Q&A


Q.  What is the inspiration behind the design?
A.  The towers are simple and elegant shapes.  They're two sisters, so they spiral up.  The architect takes a different view to the designers of the Shard concerning design.

Q.  What is the timetable?
A.  The designs should be submitted to the Council's planning department within the next fortnight (that's the next week now, since I'm late writing this up).  They anticipate a decision before the end of the year, and will commence the search for a development partner.  If all goes to plan, work should begin on the site in 2015.

Q.  How many people will the building house? (and a second question about cycle safety which was indistinct)
A.  At a guess, the building will house about 600 people.  TFL can answer questions relating to cycle safety.  Apparently, they're coming up with a cycling vision, and running a cycle lane around the back was not seen as acceptable.  [I'm not at all clear on this question, and couldn't work out what "around the back" meant.  Would appreciate clarification from anybody that was there.]

Q.  What about piers, and river transport?
A.  We've struggled with other buildings (not this one, since the Vauxhall Island site is not considered a riverside venture), to get piers into other developments, due to the financial viability of river transport, perhaps due to the fact that it's not subsidised.  We're not in a position to make it happen on site.

[If you're really interested in piers, you might like to read about the work that Caroline Pidgeon did to try and get some on the Albert Embankment.  I wrote about it on my post "whatever happened to Vauxhall pier?"]

Q.  Are you able to favour independent local businesses, rather than give the commercial sites to chains?
A.  We are providing a range of different sized units to try to encourage variety, but it's not clear how we could send potential tenants away if they were over a certain size.