APP/N5660/A/09/2105613 38-46 Albert Embankment

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.1054671&NAME=/Tim%20Roe%2014/07/2009.pdf

Monday, 29^th June 2009

Jo Negrini

Divisional Director of Enterprise & Regeneration

Lambeth Council

Hambrook House

Porden Road

London SW2 5RW

Dear Jo

Plans for the old Lilian Baylis School

For those organisations like ours, who have worked hard to develop Lilian Baylis for the benefit of local people here in Kennington, we were greatly encouraged by the supportive pledges made by all the candidates in the recent Princes Ward Bye-Election.

A week or so ago a glossy leaflet appeared in our Library highlighting a partnership between Lambeth Council and All Nations Apostolic Church. The leaflet indicated that the Council is giving the Church the role of dominant partner for a Community Hub making the Lilian Baylis a centre for all its many activities, including education and nursery provision. As All Nations is a very wealthy organisation, we assume that it would be providing the project with a substantial financial backing or the Council with a capital sum for the lease.

The All Nations Church is recognised in our community for serving a significant number of Christians within and outside of our part of North Lambeth. However, the stated beliefs of All Nations are based on a very literal reading of the Bible and include the statement “[We believe in] the utter depravity of human nature, the necessity of Repentance and Regeneration and the Eternal Doom of the finally impenitent.” These beliefs will not lead them to engender a sense of worth amongst young people (and Kennington has a significant number!) who are disaffected and need to feel encouraged and loved, not “evil” and “sinful”. And we are concerned about potential intolerance to minorities, such as gays and lesbians.

As such, it would be wholly inappropriate for All Nations to have governance and/or responsibilities for a community project that seeks to be inclusive and open to people of all sexual orientation, all faiths and those of none. It would also be ironic if, whilst Lambeth is striving to improve the quality of its educational provision, it entered into a partnership with a religious body that expounds creationism.

We would greatly appreciate your early response to our concerns; it is important that the future of the site for local community use is secured for the long term and we greatly value and support the excellent work that the Sports Action Zone is doing. What we do need however is some immediate reassurance that the All Nations Apostolic Church will neither be allowed to lease this site nor monopolise plans for its future. If this were to happen it would totally undermine the Council’s policies on inclusion and diversity, and would also seriously jeopardise the long-term future of this precious community resource.

Yours sincerely

Anna Tapsell

Chair

Kennington Association

cc:

Kate Hoey MP

Simon Hughes MP

Cllr Steve Reed, Leader of Lambeth Council

Cllr Lorna Campbell, Princes Ward

Cllr Mark Harrison, Princes Ward

Cllr Stephen Morgan, Princes Ward

Cllr Robert Banks, Oval Ward

Cllr Faye Gray, Oval Ward

Cllr Andrew Sawdon, Oval Ward

Cllr Diana Braithwaite, Bishops Ward

Cllr Gavin Dodsworth, Bishops Ward

Cllr Peter Truesdale, Bishops Ward

Phyllis Dunipace, Executive Director of Children & Young People's Services

Ethelred Nursery School & Children's Centre

Kennington, Oval & Vauxhall (KOV) Forum

Ethelred TMO

Philip Moore, Chair, RCDT

Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Fund

Lambeth Planning Ref ; 09/00233/FUL/DC_KHU - Beefeater Gin Distillery

Lambeth Planning Ref ; 09/00233/FUL/DC_KHU - Beefeater Gin Distillery

Kate Hughes ,
Case Officer,
Lambeth Planning.


Dear Ms Hughes,

I am writing on behalf of the Kennington Association to express local concerns about the above planning application.

The Kennington Association have been, and continue to be, broadly supportive of the proposed visitor centre at the Beefeater Gin Distillery. However, some members of the association who live in the immediate vicinity of the distillery have voiced some concerns over the proposals.

The main areas of concern centre around the number of visitors expected, access for coaches etc. (with the potential associated noise and congestion) and some residents feel that there has been inadequate consultation.

We understand that proposed coach access will be by the Kennington Green gate (which is already used by lorries for deliveries) but the exit seems to be in Montford Place - why?

Occasional visiting coaches often cause problems such as blocked pavements. Residents would like assurances that this existing problem will not be exacerbated by the increased numbers of coaches etc.

There seems to have been little or no discussion about the proposed hours of operation and residents are concerned about the possibility of a 7 day a week operation which they would be opposed to (especially on Sundays).

The Kennington Association would like to see assurances that these issues will be addressed and that tight controls be set for visitor numbers and hours of operation for the proposed visitor centre so that the negative impact for the residents of the immediate neighbourhood is kept to a minimum.

All best wishes,

Kevin Rimmington

Deputy Chair, Kennington Association

URGENT: Beaufoy Institute: Artisan School

Message from Jeffe Jeffers of Lady Margaret Hall Settlement and KA Planning Sub-Group following on from our recent Newsletter:

'At the last meeting of the steering group we were informed that the De Morgan Foundation could not guarantee that their funding would be in place within the time framework set out by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). This has now created a serious problem in that the ministry do not want a near derelict building beside their new school and are demanding a quick financial solution to its future of the older building.

The Council appear to be getting ready to sell in the open market and if this happens it is likely the Prince’s Trust will withdraw; their continued involvement needing there to be a museum and or workshops on site. The whole project looks therefore in danger unless we can persuade Lambeth and DCSF to work with us to make a workshop solution happen.

If there are any ideas in the community we would be happy to look at them urgently.'

Contact Jeffe on 020 7793 1110.

Report by the KA Planning Sub-Group

The KA Planning Sub-group has recently received yet another policy document from Lambeth Council titled Lambeth Local Development Framework & Draft Core Strategy on which to comment by 18^th May. This is being studied at the present time and a reply prepared.

The developers of the site at 81 Black Prince Road are going to Appeal following the rejection of their Planning Application for a 23-storied residential block. KA had previously objected to the scheme and will reiterate our objections formally to Lambeth Planning. The submission has to be in by 18^th May.

The sub-group has been briefed on proposals for the future of the Beaufoy Institute buildings in Black Prince Road and its vacant site at the rear, the responsibility for which Lambeth Council are eager to be relieved. Plans are approaching finalisation. The Princes Trust has been involved in connection with a proposed school for the Arts & Crafts on the vacant site, with the existing buildings to house workshops, studios and possibly a small museum displaying ceramics which would be supported possibly by a Community Development Trust, but there is still considerable concern about funding.

Subsequent to the Public Enquiry on the planning application by Brit Oval, Surrey County Cricket Club and Aurora Hotels the sub-group has been informed that the Secretary of State will give the decision on the Inspector’s Report on 4^th June.

Local listing of Lambeth buildings

From Elizabeth Scott

Chair, Kennington Association Planning Group

39 Cleaver Square

SE11 4EA

020 7735 2365

22^nd January 2009

Councillor Lorna Campbell

Councillor Stephen Morgan

Councillor Sam Townend

Dear Councillors

Motion calling for Local Listing of buildings

On behalf of the Kennington Association we urge you to support Motion 13 “Call for Local Listing” at the Council meeting on Wednesday 28^th January.

The need arises because the Heritage Protection Bill was dropped from the Queen’s Speech, to cross-party disappointment; however, much of the Bill, including Local Lists, can be implemented without primary legislation, and the Government is said to be in favour of this.

Neighbouring boroughs (e.g. Southwark, Wandsworth, Lewisham, Croydon and Merton) already have Local Lists of buildings of local architectural or historic significance.

The 2004 planning legislation, the London Plan, etc., have weighted the scales heavily in favour of developers. This is a particular matter of concern in our area of Lambeth.

The Kennington Association considers that it is vital for Lambeth to prepare their Local List now to prevent indiscriminate development.

Yours sincerely,

(Mrs) Elizabeth Scott

Chair, Kennington Association Planning Group

cc Mark Harrison

KA Planning

KA Planning Response to Vauxhall SPD

KENNINGTON ASSOCIATION

Response to The Vauxhall

Supplementary Planning Document

December 2008

Response To Lambeth Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) For The Vauxhall Opportunity Area. (See map)

The SPD is a guide to the future redevelopment of Vauxhall, acting as a framework within which the council will consider development proposals from landowners. It is a joint document with Wandsworth Council and they will soon be joined by the GLA. It has a 15 year time span. It should be read in conjunction with the London Plan (GLA) and the UDPS of the two councils.

A large number of sites are identified for redevelopment in an area stretching from Battersea Power Station to Lambeth Bridge. (See list)

The strategy allows for at least 8,000 new dwellings and 2 million plus sq/ft of retail and commercial.

It has as its core the concept of a significant proportion of this proposed development to be high-rise with the already established ceiling of 50 storeys (St Georges Tower).

It will be the largest urban project in inner London.

Significant transport infrastructure changes will be required as the existing Vauxhall Cross transport limits are already at capacity.

A new “heart” for Vauxhall will be built at Vauxhall Cross /Section 106 from these developments will be used to improve the public realm and local services / 50% of the housing will be affordable and the Council will not allow gated communities. There will be further public consultation.

Consequences

The Councils proposals show no downsides to this strategy - only opportunities.

However

1. Although the council appears to want to keep high-rise in the 20/30-storey bracket, the St Georges development already sets the precedent. They also say that for “good” design even this ceiling could be broken. Whilst the Kennington Association recognises that high-rise can be of good and exciting design, the effect of high-rise along the riverside is to gradually exclude existing communities in Lambeth and Wandsworth from the open views of the river and access to the embankment. The railway line exacerbates this. Thus from Waterloo southwards the areas of leisure, culture and accessible amenities cease and a conurbation of buy to rent and commuter apartments interspaced with police and national intelligence centres begins, to the detriment of the existing residents

2. The strategy recommends the removal of all the low-density low-rise development in the area and its replacement by denser high-rise. At the moment most of the dense high-rise development has been bought by property speculators and let to single people and couples with significant income. This may no longer prove profitable to developers, as there is rapidly becoming a surfeit of such apartments in this part of London. The consequence of the Vauxhall SPD, unless it changes its vision may be planning blight for many years to come.

3. The 50% social housing target has been nowhere met and the mayor is minded to reduce it further. The current economic climate will put further pressure on this target. Furthermore the addition of social housing as an appendage to high-rise buildings is proving socially unacceptable, creating dingy ghettos of less desirable apartments with poorer amenities. There are some good examples in Kennington where developers have built houses with gardens as their contribution to the social housing target (Nightingale Mews being one). This should be the norm rather than the exception.

4. The current transport infrastructure is apparently at capacity (including the new bus station) and will need considerable work to upgrade. A new road layout for Vauxhall Cross is planned. We would urge that priority is given to the safety accessibility of pedestrians before traffic; Vauxhall Cross being possibly the most inaccessible and bewildering area to traverse in the whole of London.

5 There is no strategy for improvements to the social infrastructure except the statement that this will be funded by section 106 payments. The Kennington Association would wish to see 106 monies being used specifically to improve the social and economic life of existing residents as well as new ones and to this end we would like to encourage the formation of a Community Fund administered by the Capital Community Foundation to strengthen community cohesion in this area. This has proved successful in other areas of major development in London.

6 There does not, as yet, seem to be any input from Transport for London to indicate how it intends to contribute to the Strategy. Similarly there is no reassurance as to how, what is likely to be a major building site for over the next 15 years is to be staged to minimise the impact on the existing transport system and the health and safety of existing residents and businesses.

7. One of the consequences of the Strategy is the loss of jobs from the warehousing and low-skill employment along Nine Elms Lane. The Strategy does not seem to be linked to a robust economic development plan that sets out what new jobs are to be created, other than retail, and how the plan will benefit this area of Lambeth that suffers a particularly high level of unemployment

8. There is no impact assessment of the effect of a new ‘town centre’ retail development on that proposed for the Elephant and Castle or on Brixton Town Centre. Nor is it evidenced why such a development would be successful given the proximity of fashionable retail areas just across. the river, the increase in Internet food shopping.

9 Specifically we welcome and support MDO88 for Vauxhall Walk, particularly in respect to Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre and the commitment in the UDP. We would want nothing done in this development to weaken the commitment to replace the premises, ie. INSERT MDO 88. We also welcome proposals in the SPD to rebuild Coverley and Haymans Point in Vauxhall Walk. This is an opportunity to provide high quality social housing to better specifications. All existing tenants should be given the right to return to the new build in a way that least conveniences them and at the shortest possible amount of time.

10 We would want to ensure that Camelford House was protected as a charities hub and that proposals are drawn up that will open up this area to the river.

11 There has been no public debate on the incremental increase in security/police/intelligence buildings in the area. There is a danger that this makes Vauxhall a prime terrorist target (as it has been twice in the last thirty years). In this context the proposal that the American Embassy should relocate to the south west of the Flower Market is most unwelcome.

We call for greater openness and debate on this issue.

12 Lastly, we are disappointed that the SPD does not use this opportunity; perhaps the last there will be in this area, to present a more imaginative set of proposals:

We would like to see what the Coin Street Developers have to offer this process; we would expect to see some evidence that Lambeth and Wandsworth Primary Care Trusts and NHS providers have been encouraged into partnership; we would hope that the South Bank Employers and in particular the arts and amenities organisations from the South Bank consortium are involved; Kings College, the London School of Economics and the South Bank University could all contribute to this development and there is also a wonderful opportunity to encourage the talents and entrepreneurial skills of the very local Portuguese and Latin communities to give the retail development a particular focus.

In other words, we see no reason why this unique area of the riverside should be any less imaginatively developed than that to the north of Waterloo, nor the local residents less deserving Group.