We don’t know who made up and distributed the flyer …
by VivaVauxhall - February 23rd, 2010.Filed under: Christie, Local Developments.
but it’s clear that they oppose the proposed Catesby development to convert the old Christie site in Langley Lane and the empty offices fronting South Lambeth Road into a gated community for post-graduate students (covered previously on the blog under the categories ‘christie’ and ‘local developments’).
In the interests of accuracy, we would just like to add the following comments:
- Yes, Langley Lane will be affected, but the main entrance is understood to be on South Lambeth Road.
- The flyer infers that both the students and their friends will park in our local streets. Not so. The development itself will be ‘car free’, but, yes, at the present moment in time if the development had already been built, visitors would be able to park free in our local streets in the evenings and at weekends. There is a parking review currently being undertaken by Lambeth Council of our residents’ association area (more about that at the AGM on Wednesday) and this concern has been flagged up to them.
- For some reason, Andrew Sawdon’s name wasn’t included in the e-mail addresses for our councillors. Here it is: asawdon@lambeth.gov.uk.
- Encouraging residents to come and have their say at our AGM on Wednesday (see post further down) is great, but, of course, the name of our residents’ association is Viva Vauxhall and not Viva for Vauxhall.
Rob Banks has told us that he and Andrew as councillors have asked for the issue to be considered by the planning committee of the council rather than council officers so that residents will have their chance to come along and voice their concerns. Or you can ask Andrew and Rob, as Oval Ward councillors, to do this on your behalf.
UPDATE 23 February: Rob Heasman, Land Director of Catesby, has commented on this post. Click on ‘comments’ Fourth one down.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
i found this on the mat today at the flat. this is totally out of order. its such a stereotype and plays to the lowest opinion of students. fine, if folk are against a development. but i find this offensive and churlish.
lumping it to fire is a sneaky ploy as of course many have issue with fire but to make the “link” is irritating and underhand.
to assume the residence will be a club, sure its tongue in cheek ….but really.
i agree with above comments(as added under poster) so who actually is responsible for this? i suspect its wont further their cause.
well, room for all to vent i guess?
ps it does imply its sanctioned by VV. is this true, im guessing it isnt.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:26 am
yup seen that it isnt sanction by VV… my bad! but mentioning VV in whatever re-arrangement of words does imply.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:36 am
There has never been any proposal or discussion at VV committee meetings that we would be anything but ‘neutral’ with regard to this scheme.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
The anonymous flyer is clearly unjustified in seeking to link our development proposal to FIRE nightclub and club-related anti-social behaviour in its vicinity. I will however take the opportunity to comment here on the issues of ‘parking’ and ‘disturbance’. Firstly, a reminder on what the scheme is actually for.
OCCUPIER
The site has been designed to meet the needs of the growing postgraduate and international postgraduate market place in London. This particular student has very different needs and wants compared to the undergraduate market. The increasing postgraduate market expects private, smaller scale, individual accommodation due to the nature of their course and the pressures the intensity of the one year masters course uniquely brings. The costs of the course and the imperative to be successful in the new competitive world defines these students as conscientious, hard-working , diligent and above all focused. There is very limited supply of accommodation that meets the needs of this particular group.
PARKING
The proposals take advantage of the excellent public transport links
provided at Vauxhall and are designed to be truly car free. The site
was acquired due to its excellent connectivity. Secure bicycle storage
will be provided within the site, but we known from trends that buses
and the tube will be used. A legal agreement with the local authority
would stop any occupant from obtaining a parking permit. It is true
that visitors could park on surrounding streets if they wanted but the
fact remains that students occupying for 12 months, largely non-London residents will not seek to take a lease of one of the units at this site if they have a car and are very unlikely to generate many car borne visitors.
SECURITY
Security is paramount to the success of the scheme and all residents
will have controlled access direct from South Lambeth Road. Through
design we have removed all access from Langley Lane and minimised access from Vauxhall Grove - where it will have a new gate controlled access. There will be a 24hr concierge / management service on site whose responsibility it is to ensure the safety of the students, many of whom will be coming to London to live for the first time. It is worthwhile to note that this is not a halls of residence, it will be a privately owned operation with an objective to be 100% occupied. The on site management is a key feature of this and gives a point of contact for students and residents alike. Any disruption - from other students or from surrounding buildings for that matter would not be tolerated. Leases will restrict activities to minimize disturbance to other occupants or surrounding residents. It should be noted that other uses, such as residential do not benefit from such internal controls.
Rob Heasman
Land Director
Catesby Property Group
http://www.catesby-property.co.uk
February 25th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
The flyer is totally justified!
If you expect 90+ students to live behind our back gardens and all behave as “conscientious, hard-working , diligent and above all focused” then you are seriously mistaken.
I too was a serious postgraduate student of UCL and i can tell you for a fact that i (and most of the other postgraduate students in my block) liked the odd party and to play music late at night … except that UCL has its student accommodation as stand alone blocks and not completely surrounded by residential accommodation. How do you expect my 6 month old daughter to sleep at night with students playing music at 3 am in the morning and living less than 4 m away ??????
Your comment that the onsite security will prevent any disruption is laughable. You are talking about students … not old age pensioners. Do you honestly think that postgraduate students will study 12 Hours a day and sleep for the other 12 hours ? They will also want to have a good time. I have not been to one student accommodation where students have not been reported for being drunk, taking drugs or disruption caused by loud music. You also fail to inform the residents that if the university fails to fill your student accommodation with postgraduate students, then they will be used by undergraduate students …this is STANDARD practice. Finally, in summer, when postgraduate courses will finish, all universities use student accommodation as a HOTEL … where anyone can hire out a room. So god knows who will be living behind our back garden.
As for students not using cars, again this is false. I am not particularly worried about students having cars, but you can be sure that their friends will have cars. And any additional cars entering Vauxhall Grove will make the already congested area much worse.
Finally Vauxhall Grove, Langley Lane and Bonnington Square is predominantly occupied by families and adding 90+ students will add no value to the community.
Just like Fire nightclubs has caused disruptions, so will your student accommodation! It is not wanted.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
i would like to see clear architects plans. the development on harleyford road gives fantastic detail. why is this shrouded in mystery?
having attended the residents meeting i go with the majority and oppose this development.
issues i have:
tiny flats, this at a time when london government is pushing for developers to allow fro greater space as we do not belong in rabbit hutches!
no guarantee these will not be “sold on” to turn more profits.
no contribution to improve the architecture of the area.
crowding out the rear of properties on vauxhall grove.
lack of clarity on cycling storage.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
“having attended the residents meeting i go with the majority and oppose this development.”
My recollection and interpretation of what was agreed at the residents’ meeting is different to yours. My understanding is that Logan held an informal vote “which reflected the concern of those present with regard to the issues raised by the residents in Vauxhall Grove”. The show of hands was not to oppose the scheme itself. This was how I confirmed it in the minutes of the AGM and no one on the committee has come back to me to query or disagree with this interpretation.
February 28th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
As the only person at the AGM to overtly support the development of this site - and generate considerable hostility against myself in doing so, I feel I have to respond to Draeyk’s comments. I made a considered decision based on spending two hours in the local library going through the drawings and other documents submitted with the current application. I think he would find them informative in answering some of his questions rather than finding the application “being shrouded in mystery”.
I think some of the points he raises are red herrings. This is single person accomodation for short-term living for a specific population. If the units are taken up by universities (whose need for this type of accomodation for postgraduate students is known) there is no likelihood of them to being sold on - and indeed, even given current London property prices, no reason why anyone would want to purchase them.
I also think the developers have gone to some lengths to fit in the design with the architecture of the area.
I cannot understand where lack of clarity on cycle storage comes into the equation.
The residents of Vauxhall Grove are entitled to their own views on the development. As a resident of a property adjacent to the development I will also be greatly affected during demolition, rebuilding and afterwards but I would rather live next to an occupied and useful building than a derelict factory.
Communities have always evolved and changed - I have seen this in the last 38 years…
March 12th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
To be honest Viva Vauxhall is supposed to be a community site. The purpose is that when members feel threatened by a scheme then Viva Vauxhall should support our concerns. After all I have had certain members of the Viva Vauxhall committee encouraging me to oppose Octave Tower because they will cast a shadow over Langley Lane. Well you know what … if I take the same view as certain members of Viva Vauxhall …. then as it does not directly affect my property, then I should be neutral in this manner.
If Viva Vauxhall is a true community site then they should support our objections to this development. What Catesby and Rob have successfully achieved is to divide and conquer Viva Vauxhall. Furthermore, Viva Vauxhall does not represent the opinion of Vauxhall Grove.