Kennington Association response to the Site Allocations Development Plan Document

Monday, 10^th August 2009

Lambeth Council
Planning Policy
1st Floor, Phoenix House
10 Wandsworth Road
London SW8 2LL

Email: planningpolicy@lambeth.gov.uk

Kennington Association response to the Site Allocations Development Plan Document

This is the Kennington Association response to the Site Allocations Development Plan Document consultation.

Firstly, we would like to say that we are disappointed with the quality of the documentation which supports this consultation. It is patchy and inconsistent and it is unhelpful that there is not greater reference to provisions in the UDP already established, after long and extensive consultation, that set community limitations upon what is, and is not, acceptable for redevelopment of these sites. We consider that there is considerable weakness in some of the site information provided eg. about site ownership. In some cases the local authority seems unclear about sites it itself owns!

The Kennington Association have chosen to comment only on the Oval and Vauxhall sections because these are the two most closely associated with our remit.

Section 4 (Oval):

Site 29 Ashmole Estate 1: A Community building included in this site ie. Meadow Road Community Hall should be safeguarded or reprovision made acceptable to users and the local community. It is short-sighted and not acceptable to expand residential use without provision for community facilities.

Site 30 Ashmole Estate 2: Any potential changes to this site are not made clear in the document, and as such, listing "community, residential" under "preferred use" does not give information to comment on further. Is this site intended for potential demolition, alteration or refurbishment?

Site 31 The Cricketers public house, 17 Kennington Oval: The UDP notes that historical pubs are being phased out and should be safeguarded. We are concerned about the loss of a public house, and as such, a business asset becoming residential development.

Site 32 Oval House Theatre: The theatre is currently a community venue and similar use for public arts purposes should be sought and retained. We note that there is no claim for residential use and would insist that this building should remain in public use for arts/educational purpose.

Site 33 2-24 Kennington Lane: The document claims that "existing use" of this site is not known, but part of it appears to be a timber yard, a Christian college and an empty office block. We would support ongoing commercial use and retaining provision for the use of these current businesses on this site.

Site 34 Offley Works: We are aware of current youth activities occuring on this site. It should not be redeveoped without allocation of space for robust, well managed youth and community use.

Site 35 43-55 Clapham Road: Grammar error: The wording in this paragraph should be altered to read "Redevelopment of buildings which DO NOT detract from the character of the conservation area would be preferred"

Site 37 St Agnes Place: We wish to raise the question of reprovision of a building for followers of the Rastafarian faith which was lost in the demolition of the street by the council. The council should have a diversity policy in place to ensure that all faith groups are able to gather for worship in designated buildings. The KA are unaware of whether the Rastafarians have been granted a new building, but would request that any new development make some provision, either on or off this site.

We support the improvements sought to link the park more effectively and also comend the preferred use of seeking play provision and community facilities. Local amenity groups including the Friends of Kennington Park should be consulted on more indepth matters concerning this site. Any residential use should seek a 50% provision for social housing.

Section 39 Tesco Supermarket: We would support the creation of active commercial street frontage on Kennington Lane with respect to the Teso store. There is a possibility for sensitive commercial/residential development on this land. Development should not conflict with neighboring conservation areas around the Beefeater distillery and gas holders.

Site 40 Beefeater Distillery: KA are generally supportive of the development of the Visitor Centre for the Beefeater Distillery, but would wish to see restrictions on traffic flow to prevent the attraction causing traffic issues for local residents. We would like to suggest that some thought be given in opening the back of the site so that tourists could visit as pedestrians or on public transport and local businesses can benefit by footfall. Pedestrian visits are encouraged and preferred, so some limitation on coach numbers should be put in place.

Additionally, we would like to state that The Brit Oval (and hotel development), the Distillery (site 40) and the Tesco site (site 39) need to be considered collectively to ensure that the land use is maximised, but does not become overrun by vehicular traffic. Sensitive development would allow for commercial, retail and residential use at the same time as promoting key tourist sites.

We consider that these sites might be able to form a collective hub for visitors eg. a Kennington tourist Visitors centre, in which local history and artisanship could be promoted.

Site 41 Oval Gasworks: We consider that all historic gas holders should be retained for their iconic value and industrial historical heritage worth. Any development would need to be sensitive to Health and Safety issues re. the gas holders.

Section 7 (Vauxhall);

Site 59 Hampton House: We would insist that the agreed percentage of social housing for the planning permission granted for this site should not be reduced.

Site 60 Coverley / Haymans Point: Any development sought on this site should seek to specifically consult the existing residents of the two main council blocks. A specific pre-consultation of all residents should be soughtl, rather than merely applicatio for planning permission. The former council housing office should be given over to the Vauxhall Gardens Residents Association (VGERTA).

Site 61 Peninsula Heights, 93 Albert Embankment: This building should not be redeveloped any higher than the existing building. Fundamental redevelopment should take into account the possibility of opening up the river walk for far better pedestrian and cycle access.

Site 62 Darley House: Any redevelopment of this site must seek extensive consultation with existing residents of Darley House.

The allotment should be protected and retained. The adventure playground should be refurbished and extended to provide enhanced play facilities for local housing blocks.

Any development on this site should have section 106 monies set aside to refurbish communal open space/buildings around Kennedy and Jamison House.

The KA reaffirms the UDP’s commitment retaining existing public houses in this area.

Site 63 Lord Clyde, 90 Tyers Street: Strategically, in terms of the longterm future of Spring Gardens, site 63 should not be developed and the space re-incorporated into the park as part of the masterplan for Spring Gardens. This is not a site that we would wish to see included in the DPD. However, we recognise that current planning permission has been granted, but not implemented. We would recommend that, if possible, this site is used to extend the surface area of the park considering that Spring Gardens are but a tiny remnant of the extensive historical Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens.

Site 64 Camelford House / Tintagel House, 87-92 Albert Embankment: Any redevelopment should take into account the possibility of opening up the river walks along the river and open up greater access from the Albert Embankment. Development should not be permitted to be raised higher than current buildings.

Site 65 Texaco Garage, Albert Embankment: Any development to take place on this site should not negatively impinge on 5 Glasshouse Walk as a protected Conservation area building.

Views from Spring Gardens and the Conservation Area must be taken into account when considering the architecture of any proposed buildings.

Site 66 Parliament House, 81 Black Prince Road: Any development on this site must not be granted permission if it is so tall that it overshadows Black Prince Road or the historic Royal Doulton building. Architecturally, we think a building at this location would need to complement or pay particular attention to the style of the Royal Doulton building.

Site 67 London Fire Brigade HQ, 8 Albert Embankment: The removal of the 1980s Fire Brigade control centre would open up the frontage of the Royal Doulton building. We'd make a similar comment here to that on the above at Site 66 and state that any development should not overshadow the medium rise developments on Black Prince Road.

Site 68 Island Site Vauxhall Cross: We support the use of this site for improving the tube entrance and transport interchange. This site should enable Vauxhall Bus Station and surrounds to become more pedestrian and cyclist friendly.

Site 69 Vauxhall Station: We support development of Vauxhall Station transport infrastructure for increased passenger capacity. However, any development should not impinge on Spring Gardens or Vauxhall Gardens Conservation area. We are concerned about "air rights" development and would seek assurance about limiting the height of tall potential buildings on this site might be built.

Site 70 Bondway East: The existing homeless provision on this site should be retained and reprovided there.

Site 71 Remainder of the Effra site: We are concerned that the permission granted for a 50 storey building is being used to set a precedent for further up/down the river. We would seek clarification that this will not be a precedent for other buildings, particularly on the Albert Embankment.

Site 72 - 75 (Parry Street, East and West, 5 and 21 Miles Street and Keybridge House & Wyvil Road): We agree with retaining existing mixed employment use on these sites and the rest of the recommendations in the UDP. Residential Development should not proceed without this core employment retention.

We would encourage the redevelopment of Keybridge House and do not consider that it is of any architectural merit.

Site 76 (Nine Elms Sainsbury's): Consultation must be made with Adrian, Basil, Conrad, David, Edgar etc. Houses re. any development on the Sainsburys site.

Site 77 (39 - 59 South Lambeth Road): Any further development of site 77 should be made in consultation with the businesses and community that make up ‘Little Portugal’ and evaluated for touristic potential for the overall promotion and enhancement of Little Portugal.

Site 78 (Glasshouse Walk): We strongly support the existing UDP MDO for Vauxhall Walk particularly in respect to Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre at 100 Vauxhall Walk. We want the commitments in the UDP upheld and nothing to weaken the unequivocal pledges that suitable replacement premises are provided. We support the wording that “Improved or enhanced replacement of Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre if necessary for development. This must be supported by the community and the centre. Any replacement facility should: at least reprovide the core community facility and make provision for the retention of the arts based uses; be available within a short timescale within the development process; enhance the current mix of uses; and be of an acceptable design to the centre”.

We also support the idea in the UDP that “New pedestrian links should be created between Glasshouse Walk and Tinworth Street to create a fine-grained and permeable development”. Whether the Community Centre ultimately moves to 5 Glasshouse Walk or not, “Development should retain and improve 5 Glasshouse Walk and its setting”.

Site 79 (Lambeth Walk/Ethelred Estate): We are exceedingly concerned by the enormity of the area outlined by site 79. Whilst there are elements of this site that should definitely be included, we're concerned about the inclusion of such a large number of buildings and think that this should be broken up into the pieces of land considered to have development potential.

The issue of overturning the listing of the former Lilian Baylis site should be strategically reconsidered to allow for holistic redevelopment of the site by a variety of local organisations. Additionally, the wishes of the entire local community, as expressed previously through the ‘Project Vauxhall’ vote, must be taken into consideration.

We support the regeneration of the historical Lambeth Walk. However, we are concerend that this huge site has come under reconsideration when residents previously refused such grandiose plans.

Site 80 (Former Beaufoy Institute): Any redevelopment of this site should be for the benefit of development the skills of young local artisans. Artists' studis, accomodation and, most importantly, some form of artisan training college would be looked upon favourably by the Kennington Association.

Site 81 (Wilcox Road) Any redevelopment of site 76 or site 81 should consider the views of residents in the local ‘Super Output Areas’ (SOA’s) of deprivation.