Beaufoy Building sold to Diamond Way Buddhism and Bellway Homes

Lambeth Council announced yesterday that a charity named Diamond Way Buddhism have exchanged contracts (not completed) with The Beaufoy Trust to purchase the Beaufoy Building and the land surrounding it on Black Prince Road.  Interestingly, at the KOV meeting yesterday, Diamond Way implied that they'd only recently been involved in the purchase and weren't involved in the earlier bidding process...  That might be worth digging deeper on.

Lambeth Council also owned the car park surrounding the Beaufoy, and contracts on this have been exchanged with Bellway Homes with plans for a residential development. 

Completion on both pieces of land will take place once planning permission has been obtained for both planned schemes.  The sale of the entire site is said to have generated £9 million, of which £7.5 will be awarded to Lambeth Council and £1.5 million to the Beaufoy Trust.  £200,000 has been earmarked for the local community, and the three ward councillors, with community input, will apparently be making the decisions about what the money should be spent on.

Diamond Way Buddhism plan to use the Beaufoy as a community facility, place of meditation/education (though not as a school) and residential accommodation. Ordinarily, they would run meditation sessions most evenings and sometimes debates.  Diamond plan a non commercial cafe for the building.  They will move in and begin work on the building and plan to open the building for tours as soon as it is safely possible.

At last night's KOV meeting, Diamond Way acknowledged that their centre would bring the total Buddhist centres in the area to three (the others are Jamyang on Renfrew Road and Kagyu Samye Dzong on Manor Place), which will make Kennington and surrounds a potential Buddhist hub.  Diamond are apparently similar to Jamyang, but differ in that Diamond are a lay organisation.  They've about 150 members in the UK, but are more popular abroad.  As soon as the news was announced, I received an email with a link through to here asking whether Diamond Way Buddhism was a cult...  Slightly worrying, but if you're concerned you can read one person's blog on the matter here and I found a somewhat wider debate over here which may not mean anything to people unless they've some idea of how Buddhism operates.

Bellway Homes plan to build 79 flats in the car park area, down from an originally proposed 89.  40% of the Bellway flats will be affordable housing, which entirely meets Lambeth's target.  As per last night's KOV meeting, they're also hoping to invest in a nearby playground.

Take a look at the diagrams from last night's meeting, if you didn't manage to make it there yourself. 

Please note that on the plan below, the grey building referred to as "Lilian Baylis Secondary School" is actually the Beaufoy!

The following are the plans and sketches from the Buddhist centre:

I've had lots of kind emails asking whether I've disappeared, so just to clarify... This is one of an occasional post that I hope to make on Lurking about SE11.  I'm not planning to blog in the same detail that I was before, but neither am I inclined to close the blog.  I've stepped back from Lurking because I feel that part of the reason that I set up the blog (to try and encourage online conversations to move offline) has not been entirely successful.  I plan to remain involved in local organisations and stay in touch with some of the fantastic people I've met, but I think it's vital to spend more time offline than online and to work on the other projects.

Nine Elms Sainsbury's submit plans for seven blocks of tall housing with larger store

I'm running a number of other projects in different places, so am find it difficult to keep Lurking about SE11 updated.  I'm going to try posting shorter updates with less analysis, and will run a series of quick updates...

Back in early September, Sainsbury's submitted planning permission for a huge development on their Nine Elms site, comprising seven new buildings (including 3 towers of 19, 28 and 37 storeys).  They hope to win permission for 671 residential flats and a gym, but it sounds as though it will be an entire complex of mixed-use space.  The firm plan to demolish the existing building containing the food shop (although a temporary store will be open whilst the works are taking place).  The new Sainsbury's would occupy two floors and be much larger than the previous store.

There's more information on the Sainsbury's website for the Nin Elms project here, and you can read the full planning submission (if you have a free fortnight) on Lambeth Planning database under 11/02326/OUT

Sainsbury's are including within their submission a space for a children's tutoring facility as well as an "energy centre" (clues anybody?), community floorspace (1,860 square metres), office floor space.  When I saw the original plans, they hoped to provide retail space for other non-Sainsbury's related businesses.  There will also be space for a children's playground and a new route linking Wandsworth Rd with New Covent Garden.

Tradescant Road also wrote a brief post on the submission.

Crucially, what still appears to be missing, of course, is any form of public green space.  That's how the Bondway was defeated.  But perhaps Sainsbury's is too far away from the Bondway to fall under the same ruling.  Anyhow, because I'm so late with this one, it's theoretically too late to submit comments.  I would suggest, however, that it would be worth doing so anyway, because Lambeth Council quite often consider and accept comments up until a proposal comes to be considered  by the Planning Committee.  Just click on the reference number above, and then click "submit comments".

One Nine Elms in Vauxhall by Green Properties: New development of the week

Hello, good morning, and welcome to, yes.... another tower consultation!

Today's new development is brought to you by the owners, Green Property, and imaginatively titled "One Nine Elms" on account of it being placed on the site of the current 22-storey Market Towers at 1, Nine Elms Lane.   The building will be a re-development as it's not currently an empty site, but the leaflet below indicates that the office tower has become "outdated", and I think most would agree that it is a bit dingy:

I cannot mask my excitement about another tower, but sadly, there aren't really any published details on the development as yet.  All they say is that they hope to be a gateway to the new linear park, which is similar, I think to something Vauxhall Square developers claimed, what with their proposed twin towers appearing to form a mouth at the entrance to the linear park.

All we know is that Green Property hope their proposals will create an "urban oasis" which will deliver new homes, jobs and local amenities.  Since 30-60 South Lambeth Road already suggested the swimming pool (in what is already likely to be an interesting battle), and Vauxhall Island site proposing the cinema (although the developers their have suddenly gone quiet), One Nine Elms will have to come up with some even more interesting amenities.  Perhaps a bowling alley!  Ha!  We'll find out soon, since Green Property intend to submit a planning application to Wandsworth "later this year", which doesn't leave a lot of time to consult.

Anyhow, the dates/times as follows:

Thursday 15th September, 4pm - 7pm
Saturday 17th September, 10am - 2pm

Venue will be Ground Floor, Market Towers, 1 Nine Elms Lane, London, SW8 5NQ

Once the consultation has taken place, they'll have a website http://www.onenineelms.co.uk/ which you'll be able to visit in case you can't make it, along with the usual crew, to scrutinise shiny posters and point at miniature plastic models of Vauxhall.

 

 

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...

Unattractive column and landscaping at Spring Gardens cost over £300k and approved on delegated authority

Freedom of Information requests have become an increasingly valuable tool in the armoury of inquisitive locals.  Last month, following a brief Twitter discussion concerning who might have agreed to the recent installation of the large unattractive columns outside Vauxhall Spring Gardens, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Lambeth Council asking for project costs and a list of consultees.

I received a response today confirming the total cost of the pillars was £181,586 (construction cost £134,908 of that).  The total cost of the landscaping at the base of the columns was £137,376.  The grand total project cost was £318,943.  The money was taken from Section 106 contributions, so, unfortunately, it is unlikely that the cash could have been spent on local jobs or services, but even still...  Do readers think that is a reasonable cost for the job?  That's a genuine question.  I've no objection to the landscaping (only the pillars), and I believe in paying people a fair London wage, but does that justify the total project cost?

Eight local community groups were theoretically consulted.  Letters were sent to 27 neighbouring properties.  Although the Lambeth Planning reference 09/02510/RG3 indicates that there were 19 consultee comments, the FOI notes that only one objection was received within the deadline (objecting to potential height of trees).  One objection was received after the deadline concerning replanting the mulberry trees, but wasn't taken into consideration due to being received late.  One indication of support was also received, but details weren't included in the FOI response. 

Local readers might also remember the furore surrounding the felling of the Mulberry Trees related to this project that even attracted national press attention, but which was then vigorously refuted by Eamonn McMahon of Friends of Spring Gardens.

Hyperlocal media will hopefully continue to act as a means of ensuring accountability on the part of local authorities, councillors, officers and also local organisations.  But lack of apparent response from some organisations shows that even with the levels of concerned residents that live in the area, it is still possible for some bad design decisions to be pushed through.  Of course, I say "decisions", but this particular planning application was decided on delegated authority, which means it would have been rubber stamped by an unelected officer.  It's not a good example of local democracy in action.  A positive response from only one local group and an officer's report appears to be all that were needed for the spending of over £300k.

The groups the FOI correspondence listed as consulted were:

Association of Waterloo Groups - No comment received
Vauxhall Society - No comment received
Manor of Kennington Residents association
Waterloo Action Centre - No comment received
Waterloo Community Development - Chose to make no comment
Kennington Association - No comment received
Friends of Spring Gardens - Support was indicated
Vision for Vauxhall -No comment received

It's hardly surprising that the three Waterloo groups either made no comment or didn't respond.  I can understand why Waterloo residents wouldn't be interested in Spring Gardens and I'm not sure on the reason for their being consulted.  It's not surprising that Friends of Spring Gardens responded affirmatively, but one wonders whether they actually viewed the plans for the columns before their installation.  I have checked with Kennington Association and Vauxhall Society about whether they received consultation documents as I was surprised to see that they didn't respond.  Vision for Vauxhall no longer appears to exist, so checking with them is now impossible.

The most recent correspondence received from Ruth Smithson (who responded in a good and timely manner) notes:

"...my colleagues within parks wish to add that the works were funded by S106 monies. These are funds obtained through legal agreements commonly referred to as Section 106 Agreements (S106), after the relevant section in the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act..."

The delegated officer's report, sent to me as part of the FOI response indicates in the top left corner "S106 Agreement Involved:  No".  (Edit: 19/8/2011):  Cllr Mark Harrison has clarified in the comments that  no Section 106 monies were needed as a contribution from the building of the columns.  Thanks to Cllr Harrison for clearing up my confusion.

For more information, you can see the full FOI request and associated documents here.

8 Albert Embankment - planning application resubmitted

(All photographs in this post taken from (C) Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands drawings on Lambeth Planning portal)

Plans for demolishing and replacing the Fire Station at 8 Albert Embankment have been resubmitted and consultations sent out locally.  The original 2010 Fire Station consultation (complete with photos of the display boards) on the 8 Albert Embankment proposal can be found here.  The plans for 8 Albert Embankment will significantly change local landscape on account of the fact the development involves seven new buildings.  If you wish to comment on the new proposals, you can click "Submit Comment" from the 2011 application here, but you must comment by the 16th September 2011.  The proposal has received 84 comments to date.

The 2010 planning process stalled when, amongst other objections, local Princes ward councillors noted that the plans submiteed by developers proposed only 10% affordable housing (Lambeth target is 40-50%).  Lurking about SE11 hosted the original discussion on the proposal and Transport Mark and I had a discussion over whether any additional transport was required for the development.  Also, I seem to recall that some Londoners objected to adding an extra layer on top of the current building on account of architectural aesthetics and the potential view from Westminster.

The original 2010 proposal can be seen at 10/00318/FUL and the current 2011 proposal is 10/04473/FUL.  Let's see if there are any superficial differences.  Initially, we had:

"Demolition of the brigade workshop/office buildings to the rear and construction of 7 new buildings ranging in height from 5 to 16 storeys for mixed use purposes...  To provide a total of 360 residential units, 7,214sqm of commercial floorspace and 181 parking spaces."

Now we have:

"Demolition of the brigade workshop/office buildings to the rear of the fire station. Construction of 7 new buildings ranging in height from 5 to 15 storeys for mixed use purposes... The development would provide a total of 276 residential units, a 2,721 sqm fire station, 8,554 sqm of commercial floorspace (use Class B1), 696 sqm of retail/A Class floorspace and 161 car parking spaces."

It appears that they've lopped off a storey, so the building has been reduced from 16 storeys to 15 storeys.   84 residential units and associated parking spaces have been lost.  It seems that they're making up for a loss of residential housing with 1340sqm of commercial floor space.

Indeed, the fine print confirms as much, since the associated Addendum notes:

"In broad terms, the revisions include a significant increase in commercial use and a reduction in residential use from the scheme submitted in December 2010.  These revisions are as a result of discussion with the Council with regard to the appropriate balance of uses across the site."

Also, following discussion with English Heritage, the width of the roof on building A (the fire station on Albert Embankment) will be decreased.  The section in the orange boxes on the photo below will be removed:

The additional storey was removed from building D, which will sit behind the Fire Station (building A) and poke over the top when viewed from the north.  Removing a storey will improve this slightly).  Floors one and two in the orange box below will be residential, instead of commercial as in the original plan.  There are more diagrams in the Addendum showing how the commercial space has been replaced and added on a different building.  Here's how Building D will now appear next to the beautiful Royal Doulton Building.

Any throughts from readers here?

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.

Glasshouse Walk Playground Consultation in Vauxhall - Saturday 30th July

On Saturday (30th July) from 12 noon to 2pm, there will be a consultation organised by VGERTA (Vauxhall Gardens Estate Residents and Tenants Association) held at the Carmelita Centre (corner of Vauxhall Walk and Jonathan Street) on the future of the Glasshouse Walk Playground.

Visitors will be presented with three options for the future of the playground after two sets of community consultation.  They're also offering cake...The playground campaign has been the result of months of hard work on the part of VGERTA, and I'd urge local residents to attend and look at the options for the future of the playground.

In addition, VGERTA have  produced a video that you can watch showing the playground in its somewhat dilapidated state and in case you're not sure of the exact location.  I'm hoping this is the "before" representation and that the residents will  soon be able to produce an "after" offering  too:

Heart of Kennington Cross: St Anselm's Pathways Project submitted

(Photo taken from Planning Application shown below)

Last week, St Anselm's Church finally submitted their Pathways project to Lambeth Council for planning consent- reference 11/01826/FUL.  Revd Angus Aagaard of St Anselm's welcomes comments, so as usual, go and click the "submit comments" link to submit your views to Lambeth.  I've documented the Pathways project very thoroughly in the past, procuring videos here and then publicising full .pdfs of the the plans from the second wave of consultation.  The proposal involves converting the underused church into a focal community building at the heart of Kennington Cross.  It which will house a nursery, a restaurant partly run by ex-offenders (similar to The Clink, as run in HMP Highdown), a project to provide access to university for people that might not consider attending, a new community hall, business units, residential units and a church. If you've not read the previous posts, take a look at the posters below prior to submitting comments. I've uploaded the full planning application site plans below the poster.

Spring Mews: The Exhibition - new development for Vauxhall

Board 1: General introduction to CLS

Board 2:  The buildings on the current site on Tinworth Street are mostly unattractive and of no particular merit.  That's probably right.  This is generally an uncontentious planning proposal.  (See yesterday's post for a better map showing location of Spring Mews).

Board 3: Shows some of the other buildings in the area, and Vauxhall Spring Gardens/Pleasure Gardens.  I also took a close up of the map shot, as it shows Vauxhall Conservation area quite clearly.

Board 4:  The main "plus" point re. this scheme is the fact that the developers will rebuild and redevelop Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre.  It will get smaller (currently 16k square feet, reduced to 6k square feet), but nothing comes from nothing, so it's good news for the centre, which is rather tired. 

The comment about releasing family housing in the area with purpose-built student accommodation is not brilliant.  Building student accommodation might just increase numbers of local students.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Lambeth doesn't have a great deal of student accommodation (at least, compared with Southwark), and this is quite a good site for it, given that student accommodation won't be too close to the other residential buildings and the area is known for clubs, pubs and night life.

It will be good to have better links through to the river, as the underpasses are particularly bleak at present.  And this development would encourage more footfall in the area behind Spring Gardens / Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens which can only be a good thing as it has recently been something of a crime-spot (most recently an horrific attack on folk partying after Pride), and before that, a stabbing fatality on Goding Street). 

The architectural shots on offer weren't thrilling, but the building isn't too tall for the area, will fit in with local surrounds and bring a little life and business to an area that's rather run down.

Board 5: 80 new jobs is a good thing for the area, and I iamgine it will be popular for new social ventures.  It might add more diversity in terms of shops, although no doubt the thing will end up hosting another Tesco metro too!  The plan on this one is useful, showing the temporary community centre (which will be turned into commercial space once it has been placed back in the main development).  It looks  as though the new hotel has a relatively small footprint, with most of the site being taken up with student accommodation and retail.  Apparently, there is plenty of demand for hotel rooms in London, so we needn't fear them sitting empty.  Whether they're a good thing for local residents remains to be seen, but I hope people will be in favour of developing this patch because it's pretty dreary as it stands.

Board 6: Shows the floorplan for 400 student studios.  There wouldn't be any parking (except disabled), but would be space for 200 bikes.  Let's hope they sort out the gyratory first!  Might be nice to have some extra Boris bike docks here too!

Board 7: It might have been useful to suggest the possible identity of retail/leisure tenants.  Would residents get another gym?  Small shops?  A bar?  Artist studios?  I suppose the information is unkown until businesses are ready to sign the leases.  There's certainly a lack of convenience stores in this patch; it's a bit of a trek to Kennington Lane Teso and the offering further south on Kennington Lane isn't inspiring unless you're seeking crisps and alcohol!

Board eight: Some ideas for the architectural style of the Mews (looks like brick and glass).  This is not the Shard (thank goodness), but neither is it particularly creative!  Still, I suppose Vauxhall doesn't need any more trendy up-turned cigarette butt monuments, so there's reason to be thanful.

Board 9: Reiteration of the above, also noting that the scheme would be sustainable.  Good, good.  Doesn't entirely address added stress to Vauxhall Tube, but if the students don't need to travel in the rush hour, and just use their 200 bikes (that's 1 bike for every two students, right?), there won't be too much problem.  I guess there are also buses too.  The hotel residents might be in for a shock if they try and board at Vauxhall at 8am though...  But, in the grand scheme of things, this is a tiny development, so nobody will need to ask the "won't we all be squashed in a nasty rush-hour crush" question...

Board 10: Submission of designs to Lambeth Council is planned for October 2011, with completion in 2.5 years if all goes to schedule.

Finally, I understand that anybody invited to the preview was invited to contribute ideas re. Section 106 monies.  I asked a local resident to take the above photos for me, so now you can see the early ideas from the sensible (new fencing and improved play area) to the downright mad (new Lido!!)

Spring Mews - new development in Vauxhall - Public Exhibition

CLS are holding a public exhibition on a new proposed development, Spring Mews, on Glasshouse Walk in Vauxhall (bounded by Vauxhall Walk, Tinworth Street and the railway bridge). CLS are proposing a new community centre, accommodation for 400 students, a 120 bedroom hotel and some retail/business space (including a convenience store). There is a developer website dedicated to the Spring Mews proposal where you can find more info.


(Image © CLS and taken from http://www.springmews.co.uk/)

The exhibition will take place on Thursday 14th July, from 17:30 - 20:30 and Saturday 16th July, from 11:00 - 14:00 at Westminster Tower, 3 Albert Embankment.

You may remember that CLS, are also developers of Vauxhall Square which I've commented on here and Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre, which will be rebuilt in conjunction with the Spring Mews development above.

More news and views will be forthcoming once I've seen the exhibition.

Lambeth Council turn down £2.7 million Community bid to purchase Beaufoy Institute

(Photo taken from a thread on Beaufoy Institute on Urban 75 here)

Lurking about SE11 has learned that a "community" bid to purchase the Beaufoy Institute on Black Prince Road from Lambeth Council for £2.7 million has failed.  The Heart of Kennington Ltd represented the coming together of a number of local organisations, The School of Communication Arts, Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, South Bank Mosaics, Stark Investments Limited and two other potential arts based schools learned on Monday that their bid had not been successful.  Since the bidding process was largely anonymous, the winner has not yet been announced and the local community are beginning to ask questions.

At a Kennington Oval Vauxhall forum AGM meeting on 7th June, David Toothill, (Southbank Mosaics) introduced Marc Lewis who runs the School of Communication Arts and he introduced the bid to all present.  You can see various community messages of support recorded and videoed, and the Heart of Kennington Ltd were the only people who appeared before the local community to discuss their bid.  Local councillors were present at the meeting, but perhaps felt that another company's bid would be more beneficial for Kennington and Vauxhall.  Or, more likely, it was felt that somebody else's bid would put more cash on the table.  Is a much-loved community building being sacrificed for short-term financial gain for the Council, as it rapidly attempts to shed its assets?  Or, does the would-be purchaser have plans for the local common good of which nobody is aware?

The School of Communication Arts, we were informed at the meeting, are a not-for-profit social enterprise organisation funded by the advertising industry, preparing young people for a career in the creative sector.  Whilst a private enterprise, a large percentage of their students are backed by grants and scholarships.  The school is currently based in Worgan Street in the Methodist Church hall, but is Vauxhall based with roots in Graphite Square.

The Heart of Kennignton partnership were hoping to take the building at the back of the Beaufoy and build 250 student rooms, in clusters of six and make it the only dedicated art student accommodation in London, where students and artists could work together.  The accommodation was intended to fund the rest of the enterprise.  Once the main 1907 Beaufoy Institute had been brought back to Grade 2 standard, it would have been gifted to the Lady Margaret Hall Settlement.  LMHS would have guaranteed a place for the London School of Communication arts in the building so that the school (about 50 students) was ensured a lasting legacy in the area.  LMHS would then have helped choose two similar schools in areas pertaining to the arts eg. design, photography, acting, journalism to bring three creative schools under one roof.  Space was to have been ensured for other partners such as the Southbank Mosaic project and it was envisaged that the partnership would provide creative arts services for the community.

The project might never now come to fruition.  The community and all involved would probably do well to wait for further details to be announced, but at present, nobody has publicly identified the successful bidder (or even whether they exist).  I will say one thing.  If this is the way that the co-operative Council intend to work, with utter lack of consultation and reception of community views, its methods are not to be favoured.  Lambeth residents would do well to advise residents in other areas not to advocate the Co-operative Council vision.  It may just be that the Council have chosen a bid partner with whom to develop something that will benefit locals, but they have shown complete disregard for involving the local community in a frenzied last-minute sales process.

See Vauxhall Society's article on the Battle of the Beauyfoy here.

£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!

130 - 138 Newington Butts - Planning Exhibition for Affordable housing from Dolphin Square Foundation

(Image (c)Google 2010 and taken from Google Streetview)

I've received notification of a Planning Exhibition to be held by the Dolphin Square Foundation on the possibility of building (mostly social housing) on 130-138 Newington Butts, a sadly neglected commercial building squeezed between Jewson Building Yard and student accommodation.  Back in 2008, a company applied for permission to build a mixed-use development (08/02352/FUL), but withdrew the application before it had been heard.  Dolphin Square Foundation (a charity) hope to place 49 affordable homes, 30 low-rent homes and 4 private flats on the site.  The flats/houses will range from 5 storeys to 8 storeys across the site.

The exhibition about the development is to be held on Saturday 12th March at from 10:30-15:30 on site at 130-138 Newington Butts, SE11 4QU.  See posters below (click to enlarge) for more details.

Developing this piece of land is, in my view, a great idea. The site's current building has been dilapidated for years and is a real eye-sore.  There are two matters that should probably receive further consideration...  Low-rent housing is often rented through housing associations by members with children.  Newington Butts is an extremely busy intersection which receives traffic from both Kennington Lane and Kennington Park Road, and is likely to have very high levels of noise.  I'm presuming that noise could be dealt with by triple glazing, but living on a main road can be hazardous and I'd hope that play space, away from the road, was planned for children.

Commments?

New Covent Garden Market exhibition on The Garden (3rd March - 5th March)

(Sketch taken from New Covent Garden website)

Covent Garden Market Authority (CGMA) has announced the dates for the third public exhibition of their plans for "The Garden" (the UK's largest fresh produce market) at New Covent Garden Market in Vauxhall / Nine Elms as 3rd March - 5th March (see below).

There have been two previous exhibitions on New Covent Garden Market (one in 2009 and the other in February 2010).  For some reason, I don't seem to have a record of these, but it's only recently I've begun to track the buildings so closely.  However, the redevelopment section on the New Covent Garden website is truly comprehensive, so I suggest you begin there if you're interested in the progress of their ideas.   Also, there are some sketches available from one of the previous exhibitions which give the general idea of New Covent Garden's aim, even if these will be amended at the next exhibition.

Anyhow, most local people I've spoken to have been generally supportive of plans to sensitively redevelop the market (currently it's a bit of a concrete wilderness, and is not accessible to the public except on Sundays when it hosts a giant boot fair). So, now New Covent Garden Market claim to have incorporated comments received a wide range of stakeholders and tenants on the Market.  The third (and final) exhibition will display new information and images about all the elements of the site prior to the application submission to Wandsworth Borough Council.

The exhibition will be based in the Yvonne Carr Community Centre on Thessaly Road (in Battersea) so it's a bit of a trek for Vauxhall residents although the site plans will affect people in SW8 and SE11 just as much as in Battersea.
Thursday 3 March (4.00pm – 8.00pm)
Friday 4 March (4.00pm – 8.00pm)
Saturday 5 March (10.00am – 5.00pm)

Please note that this falls on the same weekend as the next Nine Elms Sainsbury's consultation.