Showing posts with label princes ward. Show all posts
Showing posts with label princes ward. Show all posts

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

Mansion House Pub seeks seven day opening until 4am

You'll all be pleased to hear that a new pub is to open in Kennington (or, perhaps I should more accurately say, Newington, but more on that later) just next door to the Old Red Lion.   Mansion House Pub (46 - 48 Kennington Park Road) is to re-open (allegedly some time in May, although they'll need to get a move-on if the scaffolding is anything to go by).  Theoretically, it's good news.  The pub plans to specialise in Real Ale and "pan-Asian cuisine" (I confess I'm a tad sceptical about the cuisine... would you ever visit Toulouse Lautrec if they said they offered pan-European food?  Possibly not.)  But a new pub/restaurant beats an empty building, and new jobs are good for the area so you might tell me to quit whinging.  You all miss my whinging, right?

I predicted some time ago when the Old Red Lion were opening that two pubs would be unfeasible on account of the fact that the Public House business has become mired in regulation (smoking ban) and taxation (on just about bogging everything), and a lot of people (judging by the top deck of my bus) prefer to drink straight from a can of Tesco's lager...  Also, Kennington is stuffed full of pubs at present, and it's hardly THAT far to walk between the Old Red Lion and the White Bear Theatre Pub, is it?  Sid Boggle (a reader here at Lurking) has heard heard that the pub might be named Oaka, presumably because the company that owns it is named Oakham Ales.  How original.  Let's hope they change their mind... 

The local SE11 public might rather hope they'll change their mind about something else too.  That is, the opening hours.  If you go and take a look at the hoarding outside, and you happen to be 8 feet tall (I am not joking), you will see that the Oaka or Mansion House or whatever it's called is applying for licencing hours from 7am to 4am.  What, just on Saturday nights?  Umm, nope.  That would be EVERY NIGHT.  If you don't believe me, you can go and read the Licencing Application on the Lambeth website.  And if that wasn't enough (because, arguably, people that drink until 4am are known for their quiet comportment), they've applied for live music licence from 10am until 3am!  Oh dear.  Clearly somebody didn't do their research.  Remember the hubub when the White Hart/Tommyfield threatened to try and open until 1am.  The Cleaver Square residents got their way, I believe.  Gosh, it would be great if a modern, suave, inner-city, urban-priest would show up at this point to protect our poor "run down" Kennington and save the day...  I wonder whether there might be the odd loose canon in the area who could lend a hand?

Fortunately, some rather tall soul has noticed this attempt to ruin our quiet residential area (ignoring the double red-route main road that never sleeps) and has scrawled in GREAT BIG letters on the hoarding "4am", so I spotted it as I strolled around the area.  Surely it's illegal to place a licencing notice so high up that nobody can actually read it?  Already a concerned reader and local resident emailed me to ask for support.  So, here is some support:

46 Kennington Park Road is in Princes Ward.  Cllr Stephen Morgan (our resident enthusiastic emailer), Cllr Mark Harrison and Cllr Lorna Campbell will no doubt only be too pleased to hear from you.  They have actually posted the news on their own blog, but judging from lack of comments, nobody is reading!  Just click on their names, and you can send them an email!  Why not email them all for good measure?  There's more information about Making A Representation re. licencing here.

I'm rather late off the mark, so you'll need to send in a response by 27th April 2012.  Be quick, and can somebody tell the Kennington Association et al?

Tuesday, 16 August 2011

Letter from Princes ward Police Sergeant concerning recent riots

The chair of VGERTA passed to me a letter from Robert Lockyer, the Police Sergeant of Princes ward Safer Neighbourhood Team. 

Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall are spread across Princes, Oval and Bishop's Wards (and a bit into Vassall ward too).  I'm afraid I don't have police letters from any of the other wards, but if you have one, feel free to send it on if the contents are significantly different:

Princes Safer Neighbourhood Team
Kennington Police Station,
49-51 Kennington Road,
London
SE1 7QA

11th of August 2011

Dear resident and member of community,

I write you to as the Safer Neighbourhood Sergeant on the Princes Ward, which is the local
Policing team dedicated solely to policing your area.

As you will no doubt be aware London has suffered unprecedented occurrences of
spontaneous crime and disorder over the past few days, which has unfortunately been
caused by some people who live within the borough of Lambeth and may be local residents
within your ward.

You will be pleased to know that there have not been any such incidents within your
community, but I am appealing for your help to bring the perpetrators to justice and to inform
us of any criminal activity or disorder you feel may occur within the near future.

The persons responsible have caused much pain and suffering to many people, businesses
and business owners across London, and any assistance you can give in identifying anyone
that you believe was involved will be greatly appreciated.

In particular if you saw or see any members of your community carrying or offering for sale
any electrical or clothing items or any goods that did not look like they were procured in the
usual manner, please let us know.

I encourage you to contact us directly or indeed via Crimestoppers, which you can do anonymously.
Crimestoppers can be contacted either online at http://www.crimestoppers.co.uk/ or by telephone on 0800 555 111.

As a reminder all emergencies or incidents of crime which are happening ‘now’ should be
called through to Police on 999.

All other non-emergency incidents can be brought to the attention of us on the dedicated
Princes Safer Neighbourhood Team mobile on 07920233835 or landline 0208 721 2627.

You can also call the dedicated Metropolitan Police non-emergency number on 101.
Please report anything suspicious to us and help look after your community.

Yours sincerely,
Sergeant Bob Lockyer 59LX

Monday, 31 January 2011

Police tape around Walnut Tree Walk and Ethelred Estate

As I travelled into Kennington this evening, I noticed police tape surrounding much of Kennington Road, south of the Imperial War Museum with a policeman guarding the area.  A number of residents were denied entry to their properties in the location.  I received an email from a reader (thank you) stating that late this afternoon two muggings took place in Kennington.  (This is an unconfirmed report, and I've not yet managed to corroborate it).

The first mugging occurred in the lift between Scotson  House and Vantry House on the Ethelred Estate.  The victim was male.  The culprits were two young men who were seen wearing hoodies and face masks.  Shortly afterwards, another person was allegedly mugged on Walnut Tree Walk, although since (as of 11pm this evening), police are still at the scene, there is a possibility that the incident was more serious.

If you have any further information, please contact Kennington Police Station on 0300 123 1212.

Wednesday, 11 August 2010

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.

Monday, 17 May 2010

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.

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

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.

Monday, 12 April 2010

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!

Sunday, 11 April 2010

2010 Election - Princes Ward Candidates

I'll soon be publishing Oval and Bishops wards as soon as I've had a chance to find all of the photos.  (I'm afraid I've had a nightmare with the formatting - it's a Blogger issue, sorry.)

Princes Ward Candidates



Conservative - James Bellis - SW9
(Photo taken from Conservative Kennington Action Team newsletter)

Conservative - Michael Poole-Wilson - SE11
(He was a candidate in the 2009 Princes Ward by-election)

Conservative - Richard Rajgopaul-Hicklin - SE11
(Photo was sent to be direct from candidate who states that he has been involved with Vauxhall Conservatives for 5 years)






---


English Democrats - Alfredo Cordal - SW9
(Photo taken from Exiled Writers)

English Democrats - John Dodds - SE1
(No photo available - the one I posted is apparently a different English Democrat John Dodds)






---


Green - Emily Butterworth - SE11
(Photo taken from King's College website.  Emailed candidate to confirm identity.)

(Resident in Kennington for 4 years)

Green - Joseph Healy - SE5
(Photo taken from Green MP for Vauxhall)
(He was a candidate in the Princes Ward 2009 by-election)




Green - Marcus Letts - SE11

(No info, no labelled photo and no mention of him anywhere on Green Party literature)



---



Labour - Lorna Campbell - SE1
(Photo taken from Lambeth Council website)
(Current Princes Ward Councillor - in position  since 2006) 




Labour - Mark Harrison - SE11
(Photo taken from Lambeth Council website)
(Current Princes Ward Councillor - in position since 2009) 



Labour - Stephen Morgan - SE11

(Photo taken from Lambeth Council website)
(Current Princes Ward Councillor - in position since 2006) 


---


Liberal Democrats -  Gloria Gomez Canal - SW12
(Photo taken from Aculco Radio)




Liberal Democrats - Sandra Lawman - SW2
(Photo taken from Linked In, which also has more info. about the candidate's history)
(She was a Lambeth Councillor for 11 years, between 1990 and 2002, Edit: representing Princes Ward)



Liberal Democrats - John Munro - SW9
(No info, and no mention of him  anywhere on Liberal Democrat literature.  Photo provided by Lib Dems)




As already noted by @SE11 (Cllr Mark Harrison), none of the Liberal Democrats are local.  One of them lives in Streatham.  I'm not impressed by that at all.  How is a Streatham resident meant to be fully engaged with the issues that affect residents in Princes Ward?  Perhaps there aren't any Lib Dems left in Princes ward...  Are they admitting defeat already?

On a related note, why is Lorna Campbell standing in Princes Ward and not Bishop's Ward (where she lives)?  Is there some historical reason for it?

I am quite impressed that the Green party managed to field two local candidates.  I think many people would be more prepared to consider voting for a local candidate than a paper candidate, but it is tricky to know how to vote when there is so little information available about some of the candidates.  Whilst everybody has a right to privacy, it's hard to know why to vote for somebody when they've not made public any information  about their role locally.

Oooh, I forgot to add that Jason Cobb has done a great post on the candidates in the wider area.

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

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.]

Thursday, 11 June 2009

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

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

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.

Friday, 5 June 2009

The winner of Princes Ward by election is Mark Harrison

It has just emerged that Mark Harrison has won the Princes Ward by-election with 1726 votes. Congratulations to you and your party! The final count (see below) does not indicate a particularly cloe race, and Labour have performed very well in the by-election.

Here at Lurking about SE11, we'll obviously be keeping a close eye on all Princes Ward councillor contributions over the next year, so you can be sure that you'll all have your work cut out for you.

I hope some of the candidates that were unsuccessful will stand again. This year will be a good dry run for next year's local elections!

Breakdown of results:

Labour - 1726 (40.69% of votes)
Lib Dem - 1396 (32.9% of votes)
Conservative - 707 (16.67% of votes)
Green - 320 (7.5% of votes)
English Democrat - 93 (2.19% of votes)

Total Votes = 4242 (I've just added the above results. I doubt that includes spoiled papers)

The turnout was apparently an amazing 43% (which I'm assuming is for the local elections, rather than the European ones, but I'm not sure).

However... not entirely sure how the figures work...

If we assume that 4242 votes = 43% of Princes Ward, then 9865 votes would have been 100% of Princes Ward and a full turn out. That's clearly incorrect beause the 2001 census suggests that the population of Princes Ward was 11,636, and it must have risen since then because there has been a certain amount of development in the area!

So, let's assume that 2% of the ballot papers were spoiled.
Instead we will posit that 4242 votes = only 41% of Princes Ward.
That would make 100% of the vote be 10346, which is still hugely underneath what I would assume the population figure to be.

So... assume that 5% of the ballot papers were spoiled...
4242 votes = 38% of Princes Ward
That means 100% of the vote would be 11,163 (which is clearly still under par for local population figures)...

I'll have to wait to hear how many votes were actually cast to figure out whether there were a huge percentage of spoiled papers or whether 43% is too high an estimate.

Edit: One anonymous contributor has just remarked that Princes Ward has approx 10,000 registered voters (I had forgotten under 18s), so it looks as though the figure of 2% spoiled ballot papers is about right.

In any case, an approximate 43% turnout is very positive for local democracy, so well done to everybody who voted, went to hustings, spoke to their neighbours, canvassed for their party and contributed to the debate!

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Election day in Princes Ward

So... today is election day in Princes Ward.

I don't know who is going to win the seat in this local election, but it's been a highly charged contest... I believe the main contenders for the seat are the Labour candidate and the Lib Dem candidate, but I think the Tory vote count could be interesting.

A closely fought contest is good news for local democracy if it alerts people to local issues that are worth arguing about. And it also makes it an interesting campaign to observe. May the best man (or the one who happened to land in the party with the money) win! If you don't win, well, it has been a good trial run for next year!

I'll provide any commentary/info that I'm sent today, but unfortunately, I have to be in work so I won't have a chance to check out the polling vibe until the end of the day.

Readers... if you live in SE11 in Princes Ward, maybe you might consider voting!

Bring on the swingometer (I'm so sad!!!)...

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Community Hustings for Princes Ward, SE11


Sorry for the late notice, but I just received the following information on a hustings (prior to the elections later in the week) in Princes Ward, to take place tomorrow (Tuesday 26th May, 7pm - 9pm at Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre.

Monday, 18 May 2009

Update of all 7 questions with English Democrat responses from Janus Polenceus

A quick update this morning with the seven responses to the questions I posed to all candidates. I've added Janus Polenceus' views to those of the other candidates, having received them on Friday.

I'd like at this point to add that none of the views of the candidates represent my views and that I am trying to be critical, but non-partisan in commentary on political points. I have just pasted the responses, as received, from each of the local candidates to best aid the SE11 electorate.

There are links to all of the 7 questions put to each candidate here:

1. Name three main policies for Princes Ward

2. Commitment / previous work or affiliation with Princes Ward.

3. Serving local youth and older residents.

4. Serving local people of varied income

5. Why belong to your chosen political party?

6. What do you disagree with your political party about?

7. Views on the construction of new developments in Princes Ward

Friday, 15 May 2009

Hustings - LGBT - Please circulate

I was sent this re. LGBT hustings for Prince's Ward. Please circulate:


The text says:

Thursday 28th May
7:00 – 8:30pm

The John Bull LGBT Centre
64 Tyres Street
Vauxhall
SE11 5NL

0333 700 1232 (John Bull)

Hustings - Disability - Please circulate

I was sent this information re. disbility hustings for the Princes Ward by-elections and asked to circulate:

the newly formed LAMBETH PAN DISABILITY FORUM IS HAVING A MEETING WITH SPEAKERS FROM ALL MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES LEADING TO PRINCES WARD BY ELECTION AND EURO ELECTIONS COVERING ALL ISSUES AFFECTING DISABLED AND DISABILITY ON MAY 28TH 1.OOPM TO 3PM AT 336 BRIXTON ROAD SW2 PLEASE RSVP

David Hart
11 Heather Close
London
SW8 3BS
NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US
davidhart9@btinternet.com
0207 720 4150
fax 0207 720 4150
mobile 07918757096

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Question 7: Views on building development in Princes Ward and SE11

Nine days ago (before we even knew who all the candidates in the Princes Ward by-election would be), I sent out a series of questions, to be answered by all Princes Ward Council candidates. The questions and answers are intended to help SE11 voters choose who to vote for by ensuring the candidates speak about their policies, rather than focusing on name calling campaigns.

I now have nearly all responses (English Democrat has promised his are to come) and now intend to publish the results one question at a time. Anything in square brackets or in bold, I've added to standarise the format of responses across the parties or as summaries. I've not changed any of the text that I was sent by email, but I've had to move certain answers across to different questions in order to keep the answers similar (I've indicated in all cases where I've made any adjustments, so tell me if you object). I'll probably save my personal comments for a post at a later stage as I want these questions to represent the candidates as best possible. I've put responses in alphabetical order, depending on the name of the party, and I've colour coded them for your ease:

Conservative = Michael Poole-Wilson = Blue
English Democrats = Janus Polenceus = Purple
Green Party = Joseph Healy = Green
Labour = Mark Harrison = Red
Lib Dem = John Roberts = Orange

Question 7:
Please highlight your views on the ongoing property development in Prince's Ward and the SE11 area.


Michael Poole-Wilson:
I think we need to treat proposals for housing development on a case by case basis. In general, I share Mayor Johnson's concerns about tall buildings. In Prince’s ward, I am concerned about planning decisions that will mean increases in population density in an area already short of amenity space. Priority should be given to improving existing housing stock.

Janus Polenceus:
Building more houses/homes is good, providing that the priority goes to people who were on the housing waiting list for a long time before giving them to new comers.


Joseph Healy:
I would oppose any more largescale applications by large shops etc, and think that small businesses and local community based organisations should be supported.

I would also like to see more pedestrianised areas and the quality of the built environment is essential. As a historian by background I appreciate our architectural heritage and think it should not be swept away in the rush for profit.

I am opposed to the Lilian Baylis school site being used by an organisation which is homophobic, as I would be if it represented ideas hostile to any section of the community living in the ward. This is especially relevant in an area which has become London's second gay village and where many LGBT socialise at weekends etc, as well as having many LGBT residents.


Mark Harrison:
In general I'm supportive of any attempts to build more homes and space for businesses in the area, as demand for housing is at crisis point in our borough. Too many families are living in cramped flats, and too many people in need are stuck on housing waiting lists. Any responsible politician should be encouraging more housing, and in particular more social and affordable housing - it would be disgraceful and selfish not to do so.

That said, development should be of the highest quality, should be sustainable, and should not be detrimental to the area. I'm passionate about good-quality architecture and design, and think it is possible for us as local residents and as a Council to demand higher quality developments. The planning system is far from adequate, but I will do my best to work within it to advocate good quality developments and oppose poor ones.

I suspect this question has the Vauxhall riverside area in mind, as it is the focus of most intense development. The Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document has some good ideas about how Vauxhall can accommodate more homes and businesses. I'm minded towards encouraging high density, medium-rise development, rather than tall towers. I support removing the gyratory system, opening up the riverside and the railway viaduct, and creating better-quality public and green spaces in Vauxhall. I'm excited that new development in Vauxhall can help fund improvements to Vauxhall Spring Gardens, and other improvements to the surrounding area.


John Roberts:
I think that at the moment there is still a general presumption among planners and developers that tall buildings are always beautiful, especially in the Vauxhall part of Princes ward, and that the views of the local community don’t matter. I say this is wrong and they must genuinely listen to local views. I don’t want a Berlin style wall built along the river front that we blook our beautiful skylines.

For instance, the plans at No.81 Black Prince Road, if the planning inspector allows it, risks putting another barrier between the local community and the river. Two other very important points are that :
- when developments do go ahead, they should be sympathetic to local needs and that the priority for any section 106 money (which developers can sometimes be asked to pay to mitigate the impact of their development) must go towards the local community in Princes Ward to improve our area
- affordable housing targets are stuck to, as too often developers try to get away with too low a quota.

While we must realise that new developments are sometimes inevitable in inner London, there is a balance to be struck and at the moment it is too firmly skewed towards the developers.

Question 6: Ways in which you disagree with your political party

Nine days ago (before we even knew who all the candidates in the Princes Ward by-election would be), I sent out a series of questions, to be answered by all Princes Ward Council candidates. The questions and answers are intended to help SE11 voters choose who to vote for by ensuring the candidates speak about their policies, rather than focusing on name calling campaigns.

I now have nearly all responses (English Democrat has promised his are to come) and now intend to publish the results one question at a time. Anything in square brackets or in bold, I've added to standarise the format of responses across the parties or as summaries. I've not changed any of the text that I was sent by email, but I've had to move certain answers across to different questions in order to keep the answers similar (I've indicated in all cases where I've made any adjustments, so tell me if you object). I'll probably save my personal comments for a post at a later stage as I want these questions to represent the candidates as best possible. I've put responses in alphabetical order, depending on the name of the party, and I've colour coded them for your ease:

Conservative = Michael Poole-Wilson = Blue
English Democrats = Janus Polenceus = Purple
Green Party = Joseph Healy = Green
Labour = Mark Harrison = Red
Lib Dem = John Roberts = Orange

Question 6:
Name one issue that your political party advocates with which you personally disagree. (To demonstrate independence of thought and refusal to be tied to party line)


Michael Poole-Wilson:
I think the party could go further in allowing schools more freedom to run their own affairs.

Janus Polenceus:
There are views that I disagree with other members in my party, but they are not included in our party manifesto so it does not matter.


Joseph Healy:
Tradable personal carbon quotas. I voted against this several years ago. I believe it to be socially unjust.

Mark Harrison:
I was angry at the abolition of the 10p tax band, and the fact it took the government too long to recognise the effect it would have on people on low incomes. I'm pleased that our MP Kate Hoey opposed the move from the start, and that eventually people were compensated through the rise in personal allowances.

I also think central government should go further in devolving power to local government, so that decisions are made at a more local level, and people take a stronger interest in the work their Council does.


John Roberts:
At the moment, the party’s policy on bioenergy mentions longer-term targets under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, a new assurance scheme to ensure bioenergy is sustainably produced and transported, and reform of existing woodland tax breaks.

While this would be a step forward, it doesn’t go far enough because I think that increasing fuel efficiency and going straight to second generation biofuels would be more effective.

Question 5: Why you belong to your chosen political party

Nine days ago (before we even knew who all the candidates in the Princes Ward by-election would be), I sent out a series of questions, to be answered by all Princes Ward Council candidates. The questions and answers are intended to help SE11 voters choose who to vote for by ensuring the candidates speak about their policies, rather than focusing on name calling campaigns.

I now have nearly all responses (English Democrat has promised his are to come) and now intend to publish the results one question at a time. Anything in square brackets or in bold, I've added to standarise the format of responses across the parties or as summaries. I've not changed any of the text that I was sent by email, but I've had to move certain answers across to different questions in order to keep the answers similar (I've indicated in all cases where I've made any adjustments, so tell me if you object). I'll probably save my personal comments for a post at a later stage as I want these questions to represent the candidates as best possible. I've put responses in alphabetical order, depending on the name of the party, and I've colour coded them for your ease:

Conservative = Michael Poole-Wilson = Blue
English Democrats = Janus Polenceus = Purple
Green Party = Joseph Healy = Green
Labour = Mark Harrison = Red
Lib Dem = John Roberts = Orange

Question 5:
Name one issue that your political party advocates with which you strongly agree. (To demonstrate fidelity to your party and show why you are a member of your chosen political party)


Michael Poole-Wilson:
I oppose the government's ID card scheme. I think the scheme is both an affront to civil liberties and impractical. Reports have indicated it could cost in the region of £20 billion; a clear waste of money.

Janus Polenceus:
I strongly agree that my party is campaigning that this country needs an English Parliament on the same lines as the Scottish Parliament.


Joseph Healy:
I strongly support the concept of a Citizen's Income, which would guarantee all citizens, whether waged or not, a basic standard of living. I took voluntary redundancy in September and was signing on at Kennington Job Centre for four months. Fortunately I had savings as it would have been impossible to live on £60 per week. The treatment of unemployed people and their ritual humiliation is shameful and many people are experiencing this for the first time. The Labour government's Welfare Reform Bill is one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation ever enacted and is, of course, supported by the Tories. It would make unemployed people work for less than the minimum wage and hand over control of the Job Centres to private companies who would make a killing on the misery of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Mark Harrison:
Labour's commitment to high-quality, properly-funded public services is the primary reason I am a member of the party. At the national, London-wide, and Lambeth levels Labour has shown itself to be serious about rescuing our public services from neglect and investing properly in the future. The results can be seen in brand new school buildings and hospitals, better-paid staff, lower waiting times for operations, falling crime and increased police numbers, and a real commitment to improving and expanding social housing.

John Roberts:
Many different reasons, I think the Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to equal rights for all members of Lambeth’s diverse community and I was proud to have been awarded the Scarman Award by Lambeth Council recently for increasing equality and inclusion in the borough.
But I am especially proud of how my party led the campaign for the Gurkhas to be given full rights to come and settle in the UK if they wish – after all they have put their lives on the line for our country, so it is only fair we welcome them to these shores!

Label Cloud