The results of the council’s consultation on traffic control in the Stormont Road area (which in reality is most of the roads between Clapham Common and Lavender Hill) were considered by the council’s transport committee last night.

They were, frankly, more an exercise in showing how consultation often doesn’t help anyone come to a conclusion! Of the 2,700+ consultation forms sent out only 457 were returned (around 1 in 6). And the opinion was not terribly conclusive.

One of the ideas was to ban right turns from Clapham Common Northside into the roads in the area. The purpose behind this is to prevent rat-running from people who want to head north but avoid the one way loop around part of Clapham Common that keeps them on roads better suited for higher traffic volumes. For this, 46% of respondents liked the idea… and 46% of people didn’t like the idea!

The other suggestion was to reverse the one-way flow of Lavender Gardens. While this wasn’t as evenly balanced, it was hardly a conclusive result, 33% opposed it, 23% supported it and 45% expressed no opinion (to be fair the result in Lavender Gardens itself was much more conclusive, with 68% against and 32% in support).

On the basis of the results the council will be progressing the introduction of 24 hour no right turns from Clapham Common Northside into the roads, but looking at alternative means of controlling the traffic in Lavender Gardens.

It is proof that the council does listen to consultations. But also evidence that it’s sometimes very hard to hear what they are saying – the voice of Lavender Gardens was clear, but the result on the right turns couldn’t have been closer, and guarantees that whatever the council does it would make half the people unhappy!

A cynic, however, might suggest that the clearest result of all is that 5 out of 6 people don’t care enough to spend a few minutes completing and sending off a pre-paid form.

The full paper and detailed results along with three appendices can be found on the council’s website.

Category: Shaftesbury Tags: Clapham Common, Clapham Common Northside, Lavender Gardens, Lavender Hill, Stormont Road, TfL, traffic.
2 Comments »

19 Lavender Hill is an address I will never forget. I have only vague and uncertain memories of my various addresses at university, and could take a stab at my first home in London, but not with any confidence. But I know I will always remember 19 Lavender Hill. Which in a way is a disappointment because I’ll remember for being a dump, an unkempt eyesore detracting from Lavender Hill.

The building has been abandoned for as long as I can remember (I might just remember it being a shop, but it’s such a long time ago I’m not sure if it’s a false memory) and for a long time the council were trying to get the old owner to renovate and bring it back into use, eventually using the threat of a compulsory purchase order which seemed to prompt the owner into action. Sadly it was not to be, and they went through the motions to buy time. Eventually the council went through with the CPO and became the owner for a short while.

The building formally got new owners at the end of last month when the contract of sale was completed, and as part of the purchase deal they have an obligation to bring the building back into use.

This obligation is time-limited, and the details depend on the buyer’s wishes (they have slightly longer if they wish to apply for their own planning permission rather than use the one the council obtained) but the short story is that the building will now be made secure, renovated and brought back into use, either by letting or selling the retail and residential parts.

There is a part of me that is a little cynical, having seen the issue drag on for so long, but with luck we should start seeing work done on the building in the very near future and – at long last – start to see that down-at-heel corner of Lavender Hill start to improve.

Category: Shaftesbury Tags: CPO, Garfield Road, Lavender Hill.
4 Comments »

I’ve posted about 19 Lavender Hill, the abandoned, eyesore, building on the corner of Garfield Road on a couple of occasions before and have had plenty of correspondence from residents (both near and far to the building) about it. But it still remains an very obvious blight on the road.

In order to provide a brief follow-up the wheels are still, slowly, turning. Having failed – through pressure and incentive – to get the original owners to bring the site back in use the council used its powers of compulsory purchase to buy the building. It as then to be sold on, but because we wanted to ensure the new owners would have not only the ability to renovate and bring the building back into use but would also have the legal obligation to do this quickly the sale was not as straightforward as most property transactions.

However, I’ve been told by council officers that there is now a buyer who have a track record of bringing properties like this back into use. They and the council are currently completing the legal side of the sale and (though I am very wary of tempting fate on this) we should see the site smartening up in the early part of next year and back in use by next summer or autumn.

Category: Shaftesbury Tags: Compulsory Purchase, CPO, Garfield Road, Lavender Hill.
Comments Off

The first St John’s Hill Festival takes place this Sunday (13 September). The event will take place from 11am to 5pm on the pavements and in participating shops on St John’s Hill between Plough Road and Marcilly Road.

The festival will have the usual mix of entertainment, food and drink and, naturally, shopping! It follows on from this year’s highly successful Lavender Hill Street Party and Northcote Road carnival and will be well worth a visit.

Category: Regeneration, Wandsworth Tags: Festival, Lavender Hill, Marcilly Road, Northcote Road, Plough Road, St John's Hill.
Comments Off

Back in 2003 we were delighted the overgrowth had been cut back to reveal mud for everyone to enjoy

It is not without hypocrisy that I point you towards Glum Councillors – a collection of hard-working councillors working hard at pointing out potholes. I confess I was impressed by the care taken by some in donning high-visibility clothing before venturing onto the road.

The ‘councillors points at pothole’ is a classic, and seems to be something of a Lib Dem favourite. Some cynically suggest they even get lists of work programmes from their local councils to take photos just before they are repaired. But however it’s done, you can’t deny it presents a, um, memorable image.

I don’t think I’ve ever pointed at a pothole, but I’m sure I’ve committed other councillor photography sins (I’ve certainly watched a phone box being removed, and recently stood on the side of a road before a new safety scheme was installed). My favourite, however, is the one featured here…

We’d managed to get a fairly grubby patch of land on Falcon Lane (the road that runs between Lavender Hill and Falcon Road past Asda) cleaned up. And what better way to celebrate this than have three men stand on the now clear patch of mud. In front of an ‘Out of Service’ bus.

Oh, and what’s the in the background. That ad on the side of the bus passing on Lavender Hill. Yes, a man in a nappy, that will really sum up the joy we feel about the cleanup.

(Incidentally, I recall the ad on the bus was for a TV channel or show, the concept being that you wouldn’t want to miss a second, so you’d wear a nappy.  I did try and find out and did a Google for ‘man in nappy advert’.  I wouldn’t recommend you try it.)

Category: Politics Tags: councillor, Falcon Lane, Falcon Road, Lavender Hill, Lib Dem, Liberal Democrat, potholes.
1 Comment »

A bus, not entirely unlike the 87

I’m not being entirely fair here, but I want to have a rant (perhaps to vent some tension built up from the various exchanges I’m having with the PFRA).

I’ve been landed with an Unpaid Fair Notice by Transport for London. I got on the 87 at Lavender Hill and my card was dead. Not sure why, it was fine the last time I used it, but nothing registered. I started to get off the bus, assuming I’d have to get a replacement from the local shop, but the driver called me back, dug out a little yellow notepad and proceeded to issue me with the Unpaid Fare Notice to cover the £1 pre-pay fare. My apologies to those passengers delayed while this happened.

At first I was rather impressed, like most people I’ve seen passengers waved on when they had a failed card or the reader was broken and assumed that at least some of them were getting to travel for free (I’m not sure why but people abusing public transport is one my real bêtes noir). I now had a yellow slip of proof that TfL do care about revenue protection – a yellow slip telling me that I had five days to pay or face a penalty charge notice being issued.

But as I come to pay, I’ve started to realise: I’m ripping myself off.

By paying the fare now (either by cheque or by phone with a credit card) I will be costing myself even more money. This isn’t an issue about the time, or about the cost of postage, it’s about the fact that I know it costs more than the £1 they will get to process the cheque or credit card payment. I know this because I used to work within TfL, but actually it’s fairly common sense – from receiving the letter in the post room to paying the cheque in it takes someone, somewhere, time. And while a credit card would be quicker, there’s always a commission taken out by the credit card company.

And of course this all this excludes the cost of issuing and monitoring the unpaid fare.

And who will pay this extra processing cost? Well, passengers like you and me. So I’m paying the fare. Then, somewhere down the line, I’ll be paying over some money which will track through the system and, eventually, defray the costs of processing my cheque.

Yes, I know that if they didn’t do this then everyone would hop on with a broken card and travel for free. But that seems to be what usually happens anyway. Even if drivers started wielding the yellow book more often, the experienced failed Oystercard blagger will have a false name and address ready. Or even just say the card is a Travelcard. Actually, even the inexperienced Travelcard blagger will know it now (if they’ve read this).

It seems to me that this is a case where (perhaps) no-one has actually thought about the cost of enforcement.

In the end I opted to pay by cheque, mainly so I could suggest they recoup the processing cost from Croydon Tramlink so I don’t have to pay twice – sorry to Croydon, it’s a terrible blow coming after your lazy journalist swine flu devastation:

Dear Sir or Madam,
Unpaid Fare Notice: UFN 1002489

Please find enclosed a cheque, for £1.00, made payable to Transport for London in respect of the above Unpaid Fare Notice issued at 10.10am on 24 August 2009 when my Oyster card suddenly failed.

I hope the processing cost per cheque isn’t significantly higher than the £1.28 it was when I worked within the TfL family a year ago.

You may have noticed I didn’t simply give a false name and address or pretend my Oyster pre-pay card was actually a Travelcard but accepted the Unpaid Fare Notice. I hope this honesty is rewarded by the processing cost being recouped via fares from a form of transport I don’t use – I’d hate to have to pay twice!  May I suggest Croydon Tramlink?

Kind regards, etc.

(To be a little bit more positive about TfL the station assistant at Pimlico was absolutely fabulous in helping me through the process of getting a replacement Oystercard and I’ve also dropped them a line congratulating him.)

Category: London Tags: bus, Lavender Hill, Oyster, TfL, Unpaid Fare Notice.
1 Comment »

I say this knowing that it could be taken the wrong way, so let me state that I obviously don’t like to see any business doing badly (except, perhaps, Foxtons – but doesn’t everybody?) but I couldn’t help but be pleased to see that there is a planning application in to change one of Lavender Hill’s many estate agents into a cafe.

155 Lavender Hill (on the corner of Lavender Hill and Thirsk Road) used to be We’re Moving – until they moved themselves to Battersea Rise.  The premises have been empty for a while, but are now subject to a planning application to change from a class A2 usage (which covers professional services like estate agents) into a class A3 usage (a café) along with some outside seating for customers.

A lot of people feel there are too many estate agents on Lavender Hill and sometimes it seems their expansion is unstoppable – so it’s good to see one going the other way.

The application in question is from Il Molino – who already run an excellent café on Battersea Park Road – so it should be a great addition to Lavender Hill.

If you wish to view the application you can see it on the council’s planning website by entering the application number 2009/2613.

Category: Shaftesbury Tags: estate agents, Lavender Hill, planning, Thirsk Road.
Comments Off

Bangkok Boulevard, at 87 Lavender Hill, have submitted a licence application to the council.

The hours they are seeking are exactly the same as Cinnamon Cay, the restaurant that previously occupied the premises, allowing them to open until 12.30am Monday to Saturday and midnight on Sundays.

Unlike the Revolution application I cannot imagine this being contentious. But if you have any representation to make the last date the committee must receive it by is 8 September 2009, it’s worth remembering that legally representations can only be considered by the licensing committee if they relate to the four licensing objectives:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• The prevention of public nuisance
• Public safety
• The protection of children from harm

The council’s licensing pages provide more information on licensing in Wandsworth.

As usual I’m publishing this for information.

Category: Shaftesbury Tags: Bangkok Boulevard, Lavender Hill, licensing.
Comments Off

Another slow-ish week council-wise, as the summer slow-down truly takes hold.

But a few things to include this week.

GoogleLocalgov
My weekly wrap-up last week was posted during the lunch break of GoogleLocalgov. Google are clearly targetting local government as a market and, as part of that hosted a whole group of local government types to a day at their offices. The morning was a sales pitch, frankly, for their AdWords and AdSense services.

I’ve always assumed I wouldn’t run ads on this site – so didn’t see it as terribly relevant.

The afternoon session, for which I had high hopes, covered the more creative offering of Google’s business. While better, it seemed to miss the needs of local government and just a little tacked on.

So while I got a few ideas from it, I can’t say I came away buzzing with them as I expected I would (and have to admit that Google’s offices lacked the buzz I was expecting). The upside of this is that you won’t have to put up with endless new ‘features’ being introduced just for the sake of it!

Balham Street Festival
Continuing the recent tradition of street festivals and events (in Lavender Hill and Northcote Road, with more to come in St John’s Hill, Wandsworth and – I understand – Southfields) Balham had their event last Sunday. Unfortunately I couldn’t make it, but have heard nothing but praise for the event. You can read the Balham Town Centre manager’s review of it on the Balham Blog.

19 Lavender Hill
I usually don’t report on casework on this blog, because of the fairly obvious privacy issues. However, I have been asked what is happening with 19, Lavender Hill – a property I blogged about last April. Some months on and the property still looks fairly derelict.

It is still in council ownership, since some of the legal issues took longer to wrap up than anticipated. However, it is expected to go to sale within the next two months and the sale will be covenanted to ensure the new owner brings it back into use quickly. So hopefully it won’t be long before we finally see some improvement.

Chuggers
Finally, I have to highlight my post on chugging. There have already been a number of comments on the post, largely supportive of my view. You would perhaps expect that – but I would encourage anyone, whatever their view, to comment. I do genuinely like to see debate and have never deleted or edited a post just because I disagree. So, please, add your voice.

Category: Weekly report Tags: Balham, Chuggers, Chugging, Google, GoogleLocalGov, Lavender Hill.
2 Comments »

Revolution – the chain bar at 276/288 Lavender Hill – has applied to Wandsworth for a variation of its licence.

They are hoping to extend their hours on Friday and Saturday. They are currently allowed to provide music until 1.30am and ‘refreshment’ (usually alcohol in bars!) until 2.00am. Their application is until extend these times to 3.00am and 3.30am respectively. This will effectively mean the bar would be emptying at 4.00am in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings.

In the past I’ve been fairly neutral in reporting license applications, partly because they’ve either not been contentious or because I have an interest (in other words, because I drink in them!). Neither of these factors apply in this case, so I feel free to say I oppose this application.

The council has always taken a fairly restrictive approach to licensing, keeping fairly close to the old-style 11am – 11pm licenses. In fact this seems to reflect what most people in the borough want. Several pubs (including my local) applied for later hours, but have never used them because people would tend to drift off around 11pm anyway.

Of course, not everyone wants to finish drinking and drift off home at 11pm. I have no problem with that and do not oppose late licenses on any moralistic or health grounds. But I do not think, in a primarily residential borough, we should be creating what will invariably become a destination for late night drinkers.

The obvious counter-argument is that Revolution is situated on in a town centre, with no residential population. But in fact there are residential properties all around. Most of the floors above the local shops are flats, and there is a small block opposite. Directly behind is a totally residential street, Mossbury Road. And the disruption would not be limited to the immediate area.

At 4am most public transport will have finished, leaving the prospect of long – and potentially drunken and noisy – walks home through residential streets. Or large number of minicabs touting for business. In fact London is well served for late night drinking with the West End, which also happens to be the central hub for late night public transport. I don’t think we should be replicating the West End’s offer here.

If you wish to object you have until 23 August to make your representation, legally representations can only be considered by the licensing committee if they relate to the four licensing objectives:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• The prevention of public nuisance
• Public safety
• The protection of children from harm

The council’s licensing pages provide more information and we’ll be writing to local residents to make sure they know about the plans.

UPDATE: If you wish to object you can do so by writing to:
Head of Licensing
Licensing Section
London Borough of Wandsworth
PO Box 47095
London
SW18 9AQ

or by emailing licensing@wandsworth.gov.uk

Category: Shaftesbury Tags: Lavender Hill, licensing, Mossbury Road, Revolution.
6 Comments »