Consultation for Vauxhall Swimming pool and student apartments on 30 - 60 South Lambeth Road

(Image retrieved from Google Maps 22nd August 2011 ©Google 2011)

(Image taken from developer Downing's Vauxhall site)

A two day consultation event will be held in September concerning a planning application on 30 - 60 Lambeth Road, SW8 for 580 student apartments and leisure use, including a 20m x 9m swimming pool!! The site is waste ground at present and used for car storage, so it won't be missed. The complex would be located almost opposite Vauxhall Park.

The suggestion of a swimming pool has been raised repeatedly by local residents and is an exciting possiblity, but we know from other sources that swimming pools are very expensive for local authorities to run (with real costs per visit in the region of £12) so we'll have to see what happens... It's not clear whether it would be a council-run facility or a private facility which would be open to local residents.

The commerical property developer, Downing would be developing the site, and according to Oval News, want to submit a planning application in Autumn 2011. The good old Labour councillors of Oval Ward didn't mention the swimming pool aspect on their blog, which is strange, but maybe they didn't spot it... The developers even have a Vauxhall blog up and running for plans concerning their new site: http://www.downingvauxhall.blogspot.com/

According to the information I've seen, the swimming pool would be at lower ground-level, visible from South Lambeth Road (could be interesting if they move the bus station there), with the student housing on upper floors. The information I have doesn't mention how high the planned building will be (it mentions the fourth floor, but no higher). They'd have to go some way to beat proposals such as the defeated Bondway and the St George Wharf Tower... I think the development falls within the VNEB development area.

The consultation will be held at Vauxhall Christian Centre (105 Tyers Street, SE11) on Thursday 8th September (4pm - 8pm) and Saturday 10th September (11am - 4pm).

This is a consultation not to miss! Perhaps they're hoping that the swimming pool suggestion will entice locals so much that we will completely fail to notice that student accomodation can be disruptive for local residents... To be fair though, there isn't much residential housing nearby (Langley Lane and Lawn Lane perhaps). Surely it wouldn't present residents with greater disturbance than that currently presented by patrons of Fire though?

Edit 22:02 on 22nd August: Vauxhall Society have since published their article on 30-60 South Lambeth Road which is apparently proposed at "32-storey or so" (would be useful to have that clarified). I didn't know that the building was proposed to be that high when I wrote my article so I have not put their negative slant on it. I'm sort of resigned to Vauxhall turning into Sky Scraper corner now. I reckon Downing will ask for 32 storeys and be granted about 25. Obviously, a tower that tall is likely to cast shadows over Vauxhall Park, which will probably cue a renewed "shadows over the park" debate. However, I'm inclined to think more local people will be swayed by the swimming pool than they will be the shadows argument, so kudos to Downing for being quite clever with this proposal. Kylun want the Triangle site to contain a 41 storey tower, and all we'll get is a cinema and champagne bar. Downing only want 32 storeys and local residents will get a whole swimming pool...! Anyhow, readers MUST go and check out Vauxhall Society's article because somebody has a lovely way with words. They say:

"Isn’t the ‘street scene’ perhaps animated enough around Vauxhall Cross, some might ask, without drivers being distracted by kerbside vistas of aquatic romping?"

I'm rather in favour of a slightly reduced tall tower (25 sounds reasonable, right?) but I definitely support the aquatic romping. Vauxhall rather lacks aquatic romping at present...

28 - 34 St Agnes Place Kennington - Request for Planning Permission

An application has been submitted to Lambeth for the development of 28 - 34 St Agnes Place.  It's reference 10/03840/FUL and if you follow that link and click "submit comments", your views will be emailed directly to Lambeth Council.

The 18 units for which permission has been requested above are for the Family Mosaic development for which consultation was held earlier this year.  For more information, see the purple boards shown halfway down St Agnes Housing Development post (not the green boards, since these are for the as yet unsubmitted London and Quadrant development).  For more info. on the history of the site and SLP's protest article on retaining the full Kennington Park Adventure playground, there's a post here.

Kennington Park Children's Centre to close

Lambeth Council published a report on 22/10/2010 that was made public yesterday(ish), announcing that the Kennington Park Children's Centre (on its current site in the park) is to close for three reasons:

1.  Henry Fawcett School is judged to be in a position to provide leadership and support for the Centre if it's located on the school site.  (The report indicates that a national policy may be introduced requiring Local Authorities that are managing Children's Centres to outsource them to third party organisations).

2.  The new location (at Henry Fawcett School) is judged to be more accessible for catchment area (across Oval ward) families.  The report oulines the fact that the new site should "increase access by community groups that are currently underrepresented", but it doesn't say what it means by that.  [Are we talking about people who live in the south of Oval who wouldn't cross the park, or people of under-represented races, or underrepresented income?  I hate it when underrepresentation is raised, but it's not outlined what is meant by that word.]  Moving the site, in any case, puts it nearer to where most of the users of the site live.

3.  Long term sustainability for the Children's Centre will be secured.

To be fair, the report accurately records that "current users" would prefer the Centre to remain in the park, whilst non-users would prefer the site to move to Henry Fawcett.  The results of the questionnaires are quite mixed.  48% of responses would prefer that the centre stay on site, 41% want it moved and the rest were undecided.  I suspect that the decision had already been made on the basis of finance, and perhaps in the current climate, we should be relieved to retain a Children's Centre in Oval ward.  (For my last post on this matter, see "When consultation risks being lip service".)

The report outlines the fact that the Children's Centre received a budget of £304,170 (2009-2010), funding management, administration, teaching, outreach and the creche, but also notes that maintenance and running costs are high and have to be sustained through that budget.  The difficulty is that when a Children's Centre is located on a school site, the costs are shared, whereas in a stand alone site, costs fall entirely on the Centre itself.  £200,000 of income (2009-2010) was also sourced from elsewhere.  The report is not clear on where the £200,000 came from.  The entire cost of the Children's Centre was (2009-2010) £591,500, leaving a deficit of £87,500, which actually, doesn't sound to me as though it's a massive deficit that couldn't have been covered in other ways, but if the Council need the site for the PRU (see below), I can see why the Children's Centre would have to move.  (Interestingly, there's a slight risk that lots of dissenting parents will not continue to use the Children's Centre on the new site, which could leave the Council with a deficit for the next few years, but they're balancing that against capital cost savings).

There are a number of interesting statistics within the report eg. Oval Ward is one of 20% most deprived national wards and a third of users of current Children's Centre users are actually from Southwark.  Services available to those on ward boundaries often suffer and I'm not sure whether Lambeth will be able to be so partisan when the proposals for the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham partnership are put together, but since there's a nearby Children's Centre in Southwark, I can see the rationale for the move.

The major loss appears to me to be a lack of childcare for children between 0 and 2.  This will not be offered at Henry Fawcett, but instead through "associate childminders".  I'm not too clear on what an associate childminder is, so would be grateful for comments.  The report is quite clear that the capital money to be spent on amending the school could have been used on renovating the Children's Centre, but the timeframe is not sufficient to complete a feasibility study and carry out the works, and the Council also estimates that additional repairs would be necessary.

I was wondering what would happen to the Kennington Park Children's Centre site, but apparently, it would house (if money is forthcoming, which it probably won't be now the cuts have been announced) the Primary Pupil Referral Unit (PRU).

The new Henry Fawcett site should come into use between March and April 2011.  I can't say that I'm entirely surprised, but if the PRU funding doesn't come through, it will leave the Kennington Park Children's Centre empty.  That would add it to a fast growing list of "empty" buildings; the former Lilian Baylis is in meanwhile use, the Beaufoy Insitute is empty and the Olive School (I believe) is empty .  Proposals for the former Lilian Baylis will be heard at the KOV meeting on Monday 1st November (see calendar), but it won't happen that quickly. I heard on the grapevine that the Olive School is temporarily being used as a PRU, but I'm not sure whether a new tenant has been found.  Would be grateful for comments on that too, so I can update.

Kennington Park Astroturf and Flower Garden closed. Midnight path under threat.

What on earth is happening in Kennington Park?  A few weeks ago, I received a tip-off that the Astro turf pitch had been closed.  I'm not sure about the date of its exact closure, but by process of deduction, I think it has been closed for about 2 months now.  A park-ranger/sports coach that I spoke to on site (last Saturday) said that the pitch had been closed due to the hockey players complaining that the pitch was not flat.  The anonymous email I received claims that the pitch has been closed for health and safety reasons on account of a "stretching" of the pitch (opposite the tennis courts).

If you go and view the pitches when they're open, you'll see that they're in almost constant use.  I'd guess that up to 1000 people use them each day (taking into account day and evening use).  According to the Friends of Kennington Park, there's been some sort of dispute between Lambeth Council and GLL over an expired warranty which has caused a delay in fixing the pitch.  Repairs are due to take place any day now, but according to Lambeth Council, they require dry weather.  A 2 month closure is unacceptable, but that's not the park's only closed facility...

The Old English flower garden is also closed.  The photo above shows the wire fence that has been erected not only around the entrance, but around the entire garden!  I discovered this particular piece of news at the memorial for the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Kennington air-raid shelter.  The flower garden contains several benches, dedicated to people who died in the blast and people who've died more recently, but nobody has been able to go and view any of them.  The flower garden, like the park, is meant to be open to the public.  Unfortunately, it was closed in May 2010.  It then opened once or twice in June, but has been closed for the rest of the summer and remains closed.  The local rumour mill (I can't guarantee accuracy) puts this down to being a dispute between the general police, and (guess who?), the Oval Safer Neighbourhood Team.  The SNT, apparently, consider the Flower Garden to be dangerous.  Personally, I've never had a problem with either the squirrels or the drinkers in the flower garden.  I always say "live and let live",  but it seems that maybe the police are closing everything they deem poses any risk.

I was going to suggest a public insurrection to reclaim our common land (the Flower Garden), but it seems that the Common Land of Kennington Common was abolished in 1852 (how dare they?) when the Common became a Park for public recreation and apparently, "extinguished all rights of common".  But let's not let the detail prevent us from gathering to free the Flower Garden!  Who is interested in a bit of late night wire cutting?  And whilst on that  topic of the Oval SNT, and their activities, I'd  just like to remind you of the generally unpublicised threat to Midnight Walk.  When I went to speak to the police at the informal consultation, they maintained that most of the people they'd spoken to on the night of 13th October 2010 (it was just ticks on a clipboard), were in favour of closing the Midnight Path.  I'd generally keep quiet if I felt that such a view represented public opinion.  I'm not sure that it does.  Thanks to the commentator, Mark, I've been told that Kate Hoey had to step in to prevent the path's closure back in 2002.  The problem back then was that men who used the park at night (when it was closed) were sometimes mugged, and since they were not meant to be in the park in the first place, they claimed that muggings had taken place on the Midnight Path.  Is this what's happening on this occasion?  Can anybody who has been mugged on this path provide any additional information?

The Friends of Kennington Park Facebook page notes the following:

"The path has been a public right of way since 1899. It is not part of the park, but used by many people living in Lambeth and Southwark at all hours.

The Friends' committee have urged Lambeth and the Police to consult widely, particularly with Residents' and Tenants' Associations and ward councillors. If there are only a few objections, the closure can be sanctioned by Lambeth officials; if there are many, the issue has to be heard in court."

I imagine that the "public right of way" legislation trumps the Kennington Common Inclosure Act of 1852.  If a public right of way has been granted, then it can't easily be removed.  Consider emailing the Oval Safer Neighbourhoods team or Hannah Wadey, the Lambeth Community Safety Officer to left them know your views about the proposed closure of the Midnight Path.

I'm not sure how many Kennington Anarchists would be interested in using bolt cutters to gain entry to the flower garden under the cover of night, so I suppose it might be better to resort to a more democratic means of dealing with the issue.  If you'd like to see the Astroturf re-opened, and nothing happens (or is happening) on that front, or you'd like access to the Flower Gardens, or you'd like to prevent the Midnight Path being closed, do feel free to contact your local Oval Ward Councillors:  Cllr Ishbel Brown (Lib Dem), Cllr Jane Edbrooke (Labour) and Cllr Jack Hopkins (Labour).

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

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

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







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





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






















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

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

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

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

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

Leafy Lambeth Leans Leftier with Labour Love-in - local elections

I'm afraid I've been away for the week, sunning myself on far-off shores, so have failed to provide anything of an analysis of the local elections.  The election night itself, and the post-election summary have both been covered exceedingly well over at Onionbag blog.  I was particularly keeping an eye out on Bishop's, Princes and Oval wards, since they're pertinent to this hyper-local patch.  I made a few Twitter predictions, but I hope nobody placed any bets as a result...!

I predicted that Princes Ward would stay Labour on account of the fact that none of the Lib Dem candidates really appeared in the ward before the election itself.  In that prediction I was correct, but that was my only correct guess.  Particular congratulations should go to Cllr Mark Harrison, who despite only winning his seat at the by-election last year, actually received the highest number of  votes in the ward.  It seems his hard work has paid off, and as a regular commentator here at Lurking about SE11, I'm quite relieved (in a non-partisan manner) that he's still around.  I was somewhat surprised that the Green Party's Joseph Healy did not receive a more substantial vote.  Dr Healy was present at all of the hustings, had a good online presence and has been dragging himself around campaigning locally.   Nobody had really heard of or from his colleague Dr Butterworth before the election, and yet she was awarded a greater number of votes.   Very strange.  I'm still convinced there might be something in the Onionbag's first-in-the-alphabet theory.  Anyhow, happily Joseph has said that he's going to keep blogging in some form, which is encouraging, as additional constructive political criticism is always good for democracy.  In Prices, the Tories also increased their percentage of the vote from 2006, but only very marginally, and the national elections might account for that trend.

I thought Bishop's ward might be lost by the Lib Dems to Labour (I was utterly wrong, since there were nearly 200 votes between the trailing Lib Dem and the leading Labour candidate), so Bishop's remains stubbornly Lib Dem.  I've got this vague hypothesis that Bishop's (surely a wealthy ward?) is only Lib Dem on account of the fact that none of the residents will allow themselves to vote Tory (since they live South of the river in the dangerous urban inner-city that is Bishop's ward), but neither can they bring themselves to vote Labour...  Why any Tory with any political ambition would live in Lambeth is somewhat beyond me...  Lambeth must be one of the few places in the country which can veer further towards the left at a time when everybody else was figuring how to get rid of Gordon Brown.

I also thought that Oval Ward would remain Lib Dem.  Arguably, that guess was closer to the end result, but since Labour now have two new Oval councillors, and the Lib Dems have kept only one seat, it seems that I was wrong!  It was a hotly-contested seat, with several re-counts and a late night for all involved, but Oval now sits very firmly in the red camp.

I'm afraid I must admit to more incorrect predictions.  How wrong could I have been?  *hangs head in shame*  I even predicted that Lambeth Council would be hung.  Well, it is.  Of sorts.  It's responsible for its own public hanging, for those readers who had hoped there might be some viable opposition against the Labour stranglehold.  But in terms of votes, I've done a quick map analysis of the 2006 elections (left hand map) and the 2010 elections (right hand map), and you can see the map has gone several shades red-er, but more interestingly, it has become stripier too:

By stripier, I mean that a larger number of wards are now represented by more than one party.  In 2006, only Herne Hill and Clapham Common had wards with split votes.  In 2010, Thurlow Park, Clapham Common, Vassall and Oval are all wards that will have to work out partnerships for the common good.  I wonder whether Clapham Common will continue to act so accurately as a barometer for the country as a whole.  If David Cameron and Nick Clegg fall out of bed, will Clapham return to Labour and the Lib Dems?  Maybe home-owners should use this map to figure out where to buy property.  If you bought in Clapham Common, you've done well, since everybody else did too...  Perhaps the Tories will shift their focus from the south-east corner of the Borough to the west.  I'm hoping too that the Greens won't give up on Lambeth as a lost cause.

Anyhow, all of this talk of a Lib-Con partnership at a national level matters not a jot for SE11-ites.  If you find yourself living in SE11, it's with Labour you'll be contending for the next four years.  That means, we need to focus on their election promises.  Only, I can't find them online.  Does anybody have any of the literature created by Bishop's Lib Dems, Princes' Labour or Oval Labour/Lib Dems?  I've found an Oval Labour postcard, but it doesn't really contain any promises.  Likewise, the Bishops' Lib Dems appear to have written to everybody, but I can't see that the letter contains any policy.  The Straight Choice website has a Vauxhall Labour leaflet, which will have to be used for the purpose of glimpsing the future:

1.  Council tax has been frozen for two years (good move).  But that, of course, does not really point to what will happen in the years to come.

2.  Labour seem to be planning a "borough-wide hit squad".  Jean McCarthy (quoted in the literature) is usefully a Princes resident, so I'll keep my ears open for any additional bobbies on the beat in Princes that might help reduce local crime.

3.  "Kate fights for local pool facility" reads the headline on the literature.  But it's not clear where Kate has been fighting that particular battle, unless it was for the laughable 12 metre swimming pool.  The leaflet then goes on to mention the former Lilian Baylis hub, which I will continue to focus upon.  I was unaware (but hopeful) that a pool was planned for the site.  In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear news of the officers' report (see comments) on the site that Cllr Harrison was trying to procure back on the 18th March.

The above leaflet has more of a Hoey-esque focus, so it would be good if the Princes, Oval and Bishops election winners could leave some comments about their aims and ambitions for the next four years.  Links to election campaign literature is very much welcome, as I don't seem to have received much.

The SE11 Lurker is not impressed by the Lambeth Labour Lefty Love-in at a time when the rest of the country has returned a hung parliament.  I'd like to see a more transparent council, with document digitisation and the opening up of non-confidential Council papers, as they pertain to our individual wards.  There has been some stinging criticism made recently of Council officers, and I'd like to know how Councillors think internal bureaucracy might be better scrutinised by the electorate, who pay the officers' wages.  I will personally continue to demand local political accountability by focusing on the following:

1.  Former Lilian Baylis site - This now needs public consultation, or failing that, to be turned into a community facility that has more longevity and investment than current SAZ meanwhile use.  A swimming pool would be great, but the building needs over £10 million worth of repairs, and we're still waiting to hear what Labour's "community hub / John Lewis model" looks like.  Has a preliminary paper been written on the topic?  When might it be viewable?

2.  Former site of Beaufoy Institute - It would be good to see discussions about the future of this site, especially if it is to be an educational establishment, made public early.

3.  Re-zoning Kennington tube from Zone 2 to Zone 1 - I know Caroline Pidgeon has raised questions about this, but it's one for the Mayor. I'll also be closely observing tube closures and news about transport improvements.  I've seen some good news for the Northern line, which I'll write about shortly, but South London desperately needs improved transport infrastructure.

4.  Additional River Thames piers in Lambeth - Another one for the Mayor, but this would be a rather inexpensive means of improving the transport infrastructure for those in Bishops, Princes and Oval wards.

5.  Further development of Mayor of London / Lambeth Council planning documentation - It's not enough to keep blaming the Mayor's plan for permitting tall buildings, when the Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document could be used to keep the ambitions of wayward developers in check.  Vauxhall should benefit from development and regeneration, but such development must occur as a result of proper town-centre design, instead of developing through ad-hoc developer planning applications.

6.  Council housing issues / leaseholder charges - The less said, the better, but I'll be reporting on any correspondence I receive re. the performance of Lambeth Living.

7.  Cycle issues - I will keep focusing on the development of the Cycle Superhighways, and on cyclist injuries/fatalities and on the development of local cycle routes/facilities.  The 20mph speed limit campaign could probably use some attention, so that's something that's worth keeping an eye on.

8.  Crime - Dangerous dogs, gangs, petty theft, burglary etc. will all be monitored, and there's no reason that we couldn't see a reduction in crime by closer resident co-operation.  Would be interesting to see if the Council have any local initiatives that might help with this, other than just increasing police presence.

9.  Green issues / recycling - I'll be looking out for an improvement in recycling levels within the Borough, as well as news on allotments/growing and healthy living.

Advanced notice of forthcoming local and national hustings for SE11 folk

22nd April, 14:00 - 16:00 - Parlimentary Hustings for Vauxhall constituency. Organised by Lambeth Forum for Older People & Lambeth Pan-disability Forum and held at Lambeth Accord, 336 Brixton Road, Brixton, SW9 7AA. Conservative, Green, Labour and Lib Dem candidates have all confirmed attendance.

27th April, 19:30 - Parliamentary Hustings for Vauxhall constituency.
Organised by St Mark's Church and held at St Mark's Church (opposite Oval tube). All of the main parties will be represented (but not sure about the smaller ones).

27th April, 19:00 - Bishops (and Cathedrals ward) local hustings. Organised by Southbank Forum and held at St Johns Church (near Waterloo station). Arrive at 7pm to enter a question from the floor

29th April, 18:30 - Princes and Oval ward local hustings. Organised by Kennington Oval Vauxhall forum and held at Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre (on Vauxhall Walk, not far from Vauxhall station).

Any more for anymore? It's frustrating to hear about hustings on the day or once they've taken place, so would be useful to flag up any others that SE11 folk might be interested in attending. Feel free to leave a comment about any others, and I'll amend the post.

2010 Election - Oval Ward Candidates

Oval Ward Candidates

Conservative - Oliver Campbell - SE11

(No photo. Can't find info. although he's mentioned on the Conservative Action Paper)

Conservative - Michelle Imperi - SW8

(No photo.  Can't find further info.)

Conservative - Nicholas Timothy - SW8

(No photo.  Can't find further info.)




--

English Democrats - Issam Ebarek-Rmiki - SE11

(No photo.  No further info. anywhere at all)

English Democrats - Jose Navarro - SW8

(Photo from his website, pointed to me by English Democrats)

English Democrats - Michael Perry - SE11

--

Green Party - Charles Boxer - SW8

(Photo supplied by candidate.  One reader notes that Charlie runs the delicatessen on Bonnington Square)

Green Party - Samuel Low - SW8

Green Party - James Staunton - SW8

--

Labour - (Angela) Jane Edbrooke - SE24

(Photo taken from Labour East Hampshire PPC page)
(On Twitter as @JaneinLondon)

Labour - Jack Hopkins - SW8

(Photo taken from Twitter, where he's quite active)

(On Twitter as @JackHopkins_Lab)

Labour - Karim Palant - SW9

(No photo that I can see.  I can only find snippets of info.)

(Former National Chair of Labour Students)


--

Liberal Democrats - Ishbel Brown - SW8

(Photo taken from Oval News blog)

Liberal Democrats - Claudette Hewitt - SW8

(Photo taken from Oval News blog)

Liberal Democrats - Andrew Sawdon - SE5

(Photo taken from Lambeth Council website)

(Current Oval Ward Councillor - in position since 1994)

--

This is a rather sorry state of affairs.  You'd think that some of these candidates didn't want anybody to vote for them.  They're not even listed on their own party websites.  If I've missed anybody that does have a public profile, just leave a comment and I'll add the individual in question.

Of the current Lib Dems councillors, Cllr Faye Gray is moving from Oval and standing in Vassall ward, just next door.  I'm not sure whether Cllr Robert Banks is taking a break as he has nominated candidates, but isn't standing himself.  Edit: It appears Cllr Andrew Sawdon has been an Oval Councillor on and off since 1978, but not all for Oval Ward.  Even still.  Seriously impressive.

Two timing politicans

Is there some kind of new expectation amongst London politicans that an unyet invented teleportation device will soon be available?  Why are so many of our local candidates standing in two wards/constituencies at the same time?  Why are they all being unfaithful, and two-timing London?  Don't we deserve more than that?  Is there so little casework involved in being a good local councillor that they feel they could sit in parliament as well as on Lambeth Council?

Jason Cobb already helpfully pointed out that the Labour Oval ward candidate, Jane Edbrooke, is standing as a candidate for Oval ward, and as a parlimentary candidate for East Hampshire!  (Hopefully, both sets of constituents will be unimpressed).

One of Twitter's Labour supporters, @Kieran Casey helpfully pointed out, as was already noted, that Joseph Healy is standing as a Green candidate for Princes Ward, and as a parlimentary candidate for Vauxhall!  (At least there's some geographical similarity there, but sadly the Vauxhall greens don't yet seem to have local policies in place for Princes/Oval, so chances of success are slim...)

But I wonder whether Kieran should have checked with his own party before pointing out the folly of others because, to top it off, Cllr Steven Morgan (current Labour incumbant in Princes ward) is now re-standing for Princes ward as well as standing as a parlimentary candidate for Orpington.  Of course, if you have the misfortune to dwell near Orpington, you'll know that you could pin a blue rosette on a monkey in that area, and everybody would still vote Conservative. However, if you've a long memory, you might remember that one of the blog's esteemed readers, Sid Boggle, raised this issue in the by-election here, when he said:

"I suppose the local party apparatchiks will be grooming their next 'second coming' to replace Steve Morgan, who I assume will stand down next year so he can fight Orpington."

No such luck... It seems it's acceptable these days to presume that voters will seriously consider candidates standing in two geographically distinct locations.  It's fine.  After all, Cllr Morgan's mum lives in Orpington, so she can probably tell him about important local issues.

Cllr Morgan responded to Sid Boggle, "Thanks for your view of my political future. I really am delighted that you think I am such a great campaigner that I will go to Orpington and take the Labour Party from 4,914 votes to over 26,718 votes to become the next MP."

Look out Orpington!

Proposed service charge increases for Lambeth leaseholders

I've received some interesting news which suggests that Lambeth Councillors held a meeting (it's not quite clear to me what group was represented) on Monday night in which they voted to increase management charges for Lambeth leaseholders. It seems that this is not a Lambeth executive decision, but just a vote by certain councillors in favour of increases in rent and service charge. A motion would still need to be voted on by the Council, but perhaps some residents might want to take action before the proposed increases take place.

Proposed service charges for leaseholders would be set to move from the current 10% to 18%, and for those who rent, a 5% rent increase is on the cards. These increases are proposed at a time (as many of you are aware) in which the standard of service provided by Lambeth Living to residents has been despicable.

Those of you who are affected might like to email your local councillors to ask for a transcript from the meeting or to protest the rises. SE11 comprises Princes, Oval or Bishops wards, but you can just enter your postcode here to check who your councillors are. Alternatively, you could email your MP, Kate Hoey, (who I hear is very sympathetic to Leaseholder concerns) at hoeyk@parliament.uk

Keep an eye out for this week's article in the South London Press which might contain further information...

[Please also look at the post entitled Cllr Mark Harrison refutes Lambeth Leaseholder Service Charge Increases. Mark Harrison (one of the Princes Ward councillors) has provided his view of what was stated at the meeting which took place on Monday, as he does not think that any rise in Leaseholder charges was discussed. It would be good to see some reasoned debate taking place about how we appear to have two divergent views on what took place at that meeting.]

TFL Cycling Scheme

I don't think I've mentioned it here, but I've been looking forward to the start of TFL's new Cycle Hire scheme which (due to the fact that SE11 is secretly in Zone 1) will extend as far South as Oval and is due to begin in May 2010. There's a nice handy map of the coverage here. You might want to lament the fact that less than a quarter of the entire provision of the scheme is made for South of the River, but let's not complain about that too much now...

The local community were consulted about provision for bicycles and their stands in March 2009.

A table of potential docking locations offered is available here and images of potential docking station location were produced.

I don't know what emerged from the KOV forum consultation which took place.

However, I do know that Cllr Rob Banks (Oval, Lib Dem) offered to pass on comments from one local committee that the docking station outside Windmill Row "would mean the loss of parking bays in an area where there are not enough at the moment due to red routes etc, bad news for disabled drivers and local businesses, and there are other nearby sites for the bikes." I presume these comments were passed on to the relevant authorities.

Consequently, (in an email passed to Ms Porteur today), we are somewhat disappointed to see that one of the planning permission requests surrounding the scheme actually includes the Windmill Row site which was commented on (by at least one committee) as inappropriate. There were 34 potential sites, so it didn't seem that difficult to avoid the problematic one.

The sites requested for permission (so far) are:

<><> <><> <><> <><> <><> <><> . Bishops 09/01698/FUL 2/6/2009 Under Waterloo Bridge - North East Of Belvedere Road London Installation on the pedestrian footway of a cycle hire docking station containing a maximum of 39 do... Pending Consideration Bishops 09/01700/FUL 29/05/2009 Footway Opposite 150-152 Concert Hall Approach London Installation on the pedestrian footway of cycle hire docking stations containing a maximum of 41 doc... Pending Consideration Princes 09/01678/FUL 29/05/2009 Land On Sancroft Street Outside Woodstock Court London Installation on the vehicle carriageway of a cycle hire docking station containing a maximum of 25 d... Pending Consideration Oval 09/01778/FUL 5/6/2009 Under Railway Bridge, Vauxhall Station, Kennington Lane London Installation on pedestrian footway of cycle hire docking station for the transport for london cycle ... Pending Consideration Oval 09/01720/FUL 1/6/2009 Outside 1-5 Windmill Row London Installation on the vehicle carriageway of a cycle hire docking station containing a maximum of 32 d... Pending Consideration

The problem is that I don't know whether to advise readers to object to the planning permission on the Windmill Row site. I'd rather have the cycle hire in an inappropriate place than not at all.

London European Election results - Lambeth breakdown

I know it's only of marginal interest to SE11 readers, but we are a part of the London Borough of Lambeth and I think the breakdown of voting in the Borough of Lambeth in the European elections is fascinating because it's contrary to the rest of the UK.

Thanks to Fiona Colley on Twitter who pointed me to the full results on Lambeth website here.

The breakdown is as follows:

1174 - BNP
2154 - Christian Party - Proclaiming Christ's Lordship
10537 - Conservative Party
488 - English Democrat Party
194 - Jury Team
11340 - Liberal Democrats
478 - No to EU: Yes to Democracy
281 - Pro Democracy: Libertas.eu
653 - Socialist Labour Party
10394 - The Green Party
15990 - The Labour Party
158 - The Socialist Party of Great Britain
3111 - United Kingdom Independence Party
155 - Yes to Europe
46 - Gene Alcantara
187 - Steven Cheung
176 - Jan Jananayagam
36 - Sohale Rahman
48 - Haroon Saad

Rejected ballots = 558
Turnout = 30.15%

So total votes cast = 58,158

What's interesting about these results is as follows:

1. The Green Party won only 143 votes less than the Conservatives in Lambeth. That's an appalling Conservative result and a fantastic result for the Greens!

2. Labour are so far ahead (4650 votes) than their nearest rivals (Lib Dems) in Lambeth that they're virtually unbeatable at current turnout levels. This might not be so interesting if Labour didn't appear to be performing so badly nationally. There's a joke in my hometown constituency that "you could pin a blue rosette on a monkey, and everybody would still vote Conservative", but that seems to hold for red rosettes in Lambeth.

3. UKIP performed appallingly in Lambeth compared with the national result. Even the UKIP result and the BNP result added together does not approach anything like that of the main parties and only makes up 7.37% of the vote.

4. The BNP won only just over 2% of the vote. That's still too much, but it does mean that they're not likely to gain a foothold in Lambeth and their "clean image" promotion is not working amongst local people. That's a very good thing.

5. If everyone who voted for a party that received under 1000 votes had voted for a party that received 1000 votes or above, there would be an extra 2900 votes zapping around that might not have been "wasted" on minor candidates. Those votes couldn't have closed the gap between Labour and their opponents, but they could have pushed Lib Dems much closer to Labour or pushed either the Conservatives or Greens into second place.

I would love it if this data were available by ward. We're interested in Princes, Oval and Bishops around here, but I don't suppose that information is available. Please comment if you know where I could obtain a further breakdown.

SE11 Monthly Crime Update: July 2008

I just noticed that the July 2008 stats are out for the Metropolitan Police Crime Map. The Police have started to compare the different levels of crime in each different Borough when you click in detail on the map. However, I'm turning it into a crude chart format so we can watch Lambeth in-depth over the next few months.

See my previous post for reasons as to why these stats. are not definitive.

Comparison:

Lambeth crime levels (Average - June 08, Average - July 08)
Southwark crime levels (High - June 08, Above Average - July 08)
Westminster crime levels (High - June 08, High - July 08)

So, overall, things have improved somewhat in Southwark, and Lambeth remains the same. Now, breaking Lambeth down into its boroughs, we find as follows:

(3 = Average, 4 = Above Average)

Jul08 Jun08
3........3 = Bishops
3........3 = Brixton Hill
3........3 = Clapham Common
3........3 = Clapham Town
3........4 = Cold Harbour
3........4 = Ferndale
3........3 = Gipsy Hill
3........3 = Herne Hill
3........3 = Knight's Hill
3........3 = Larkhall
4........4 = Oval Ward
4........3 = Princes
3........4 = St Leonards
3........3 = Stockwell
3........3 = Streatham Hill
3........3 = Streatham South
3........3 = Streatham Wells
3........3 = Thornton
3........4 = Thurlow Park
3........3 = Tulse Hill
3........3 = Vassall Ward

Oval Ward has high crime for 2 months running and in Princes Ward, crime has risen to the "high crime" bracket. However, other than that, crime has broadly either stayed the same or improved throughout Lambeth and every borough is reporting "average" crime. Furthur investigation reveals that 31 crimes were reported in Princes in June, but in July, this went up to 41!

Crime in SE11, Lambeth, Southwark and surrounds

On some of my previous posts, I've been scathing about people who consider South London to be dangerous, full of crime and not worthy of their attention. I've been interested for some time about how much crime is really committed in the different parts of London, and what type of crime etc. I'm most interested in SE11, but being so close to SE1, SE17, SW8 and SW9, it seems that a wider view ought to be taken. We can hardly stop people postcode hopping to commit crime!

Crime statistics are massively flawed for (at least) the three following reasons:

1. Crime stats. depend upon people reporting crime. I know lots of people who are the victims of petty theft who wouldn't report their crime if they didn't think that there was anything the police could do.

2. The police, periodically, change the definition of of what constitutes a crime "bracket" for a particular crime. So if one bracket goes up too much eg. "violent crime", they'll remove car crime from the bunch and place it in a different bracket. This makes long term study of crime very difficult because it's hard to tell where the boundaries have moved from and to.

3. Periodically, the area boundaries for measurement of crime are changed. I'm not sure whether this is so much of a problem as changing definitions, but it no doubt factors.

Anyhow, having said that, I found that the Metropolitan police (with some cleverish google mapping) have plotted a crime map of London (excluding the City). The "crimes" it counts are burglary, robbery and vehicle crime. The map uses colour to display highest crime areas in orange and red, and average in yellow. One can then break the areas down furthur and see the crime in particular wards.

Overall, Lambeth has a yellow shading (average crime), but Southwark has a red shading (high crime) for June 2008. I checked the figures, which state 850 crimes in June 2008 in Southwark, and 739 in Lambeth. It seemed to me then that the margin of difference between the brackets was small. However, I've played around a little more and it seems that the average numbers are calculated on the size of the borough in question. Westminster had fewer crimes committed than Lambeth, but since it's smaller, it records "above average" crime for London. The site is only in "Beta/testing" mode at the moment and I've asked for feedback as to more detail on the crime for future versions....

Anyhow, looking at Lambeth overall, there are (as is predictable) pockets of parts of Lambeth with more crime than others for June 08, but the good news first:

Average Crime compared with the rest of London: Bishops Ward, Princes Ward, Vassall Ward, Stockwell Ward, Larkhall Ward, Clapham Town Ward, Clapham Common Ward, Brixton Hill, Herne Hill, Thornton Ward, Tulse Hill Ward, Streatham Hill Ward, Streatham South, Streatham Wells, Gipsy Hill, Knight's Hill,

The bad news (but note that Lambeth has no wards with "high" crime:
Above Average Crime compared with the rest of London: Oval Ward, Ferndale Ward, Cold Harbour Ward, Thurlow Park Ward and St Leonards Ward.

Lambeth is statistically safer (but remember that this is an odd figure because of the different ward sizes) than both Southwark and Westminster.

SE11 has average crime levels for June 2008 (much of the area is in Princes Ward so that seems correct), the small Oval Ward subsection of SE11 also has average crime levels. The west of SE11 (a small subsection of Princes ward) has above average crime, but it's not clear how much of that might stem from the Albert Embankment.

However, the borders of SE11 are not so good. At the south and east side, SE11 is surrounded by 3 pockets of "above average" crime and 1 pocket of "high" crime (I suspect that that is due to Vauxhall Station and its unpleasant surrounds). Directly north of SE11 near Elephant, there is a pocket of "above average" crime as well.

As I said above, I'm hoping that the Metropolitan Police Crime Map will be developed over the next few months so that it will be possible to compare different periods of time and break down the type of crime in any area. I'll report back as soon as they release the figures for July 2008, so we can just see whether it was a quiet month, of whether Lambeth might really be declared to be a place of only "average" crime.

New SE11 related blogs and a look at the political wards

I've resisted adding SE11 councillor blogs to the list until recently because I do not support any particular political party. However, I today discovered two blogs both written by different parties, so I do not appear partisan and since they both cover the area, it seems a shame not to link to them. They are as follows:

1. Oval News - by 3 lib dem councillors in the Oval Ward

2. SE11 Action team - by 3 labour councillors (and some of their supporters) in the Princes Ward

That made me wonder about the rest of the Lambeth political wards, and whether they are represented. (SE11 is largely spread across the Borough of Lambeth, but there are a few bits at the north end that come under Southwark's control). There's a nice handy map of the Lambeth Wards on the Lambeth Council website.

As you can see, the ones that are relevant to SE11 and surrounds are:

1. Princes Ward - This is really the northern part of SE11. It goes up as far as the southern half of Brook Drive, runs down the middle of Kennington Park Road and does not go any furthur south than Kennington Lane. The map also indicates that it covers half of the river Thames! [Labour - as of July 2008]

2. Oval Ward - This is a major constituent part of SE11 and also covers quite a lot of SW8. It includes the whole of Kennington Park, Oval cricket ground (which is its centre) and Vauxhall Park. It goes south as far as Dorset Road and Thorne Road, east to cover a small portion of Brixton Road, and in the north, it runs down the middle of Kennington Lane. [Lib-Dem - as of July 2008]

3. Bishop's Ward - There is a very tiny part of the north east corner of SE11 that is covered by Bishop's Ward. The northern part of Old Paradise Street, the northern part of Fitzalan Street, the whole of Walnut Tree Walk and a very small segment of Kennington Road all fall into this ward. I think, however, that my own postcode map boundaries are a little hazy around here, because SE1 creeps into some of the streets around here. [Lib Dem - as of July 2008]

4. Vassall Ward - This is not strictly a part of SE11, but it's very close to Oval, and covers the area south-east of SE11. For our purposes, it goes down the middle of Camberwell New Road in the north, and Clapham Road on the west. [Labour / Lib Dem Split as of July 2008]

5. Stockwell Ward - Again, this also does not cover SE11, but is situated to the south west of SE11. [Labour as of July 2008]

The political parties of the councillors and the councillor details are all condensed on very helpful Lambeth Council page here.