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...).

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.

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!