We were going to inform you of the historical consequences of putting a bus station in the middle of the square, but after having read this letter to one of TfL's decision makers, Leon Daniels, from the former chair of the Clapham Society, John Adams, we didn't think we could describe the situation any better. So here it is....
UPDATE!! Since this letter was published we saw a counter letter from the Save Clapham Common group who are campaigning for a bus station in the Old Town Square. So we have included it below John's letter and then included the Save Clapham Old Town response which was sent on John's behalf as he was not in the country at the time. John is a keen supporter of our campaign and is vehemently against the bus station proposals. You will also see evidence here that Kate Hoey and her supporters are discussing five live bus stands with TfL, despite the fact that she says she only wants four now. Kate Hoey, not us, made the letter public.
Dear Mr Daniels,
CLAPHAM OLD TOWN AND THE “GATEWAY” PROJECT.
I am a member of the Steering Group and former Chair of the Clapham Society, which is the local Civic Amenity Society with a membership of just under 800.
I am one of those who are shocked to hear that Lambeth’s’ December proposal, which we understood to be acceptable, is not so after all. This despite assurances received at the time. It was held to satisfy TfL’s operational requirements and had the potential for a balanced improvement to the heart and historic centre of Clapham and the Conservation Area.
We are now even more astonished to learn that you are considering a completely different proposal for the Old Town “square” which puts more bus stands there than ever before. The large number of the buses standing in the Old Town “square” by the 1990’s was the original impetus behind the first “Gateway” proposal, which was very much supported by the community. Since the 1990’s at least two more routes now terminate in Clapham. They dominate the space when en bloc.
As an amenity group we represent a community desire to get a design which not only meets the transport needs of the city but also protects and improves the historic environment. Clapham Old Town looks rather sad today mainly because it suffers from neglect in terms of paving and streetscape and the square is not inclusive to pedestrians. The surrounding buildings form a fine example of historic urban townscape. Several are listed and most of the remainder are of great character and interest. The classic views through to Clapham Common and Holy Trinity Church are an essential component. The larger the block of buses and bus movement within the square, the greater and more detrimental it will be to the sense of the space and the views out. It will limit the potential for a meaningful pedestrian space at the upper (south) end of the square.
The current scheme strives to reverse the decline and to enhance Clapham’s only public urban square for the enjoyment of people whilst honouring the visual and physical links with the Common. Your four bus alternative may be just about workable but clearly a greater number ( + attendant paraphernalia) is not sustainable without detriment to this unique place.
My main purpose in writing is to request that each and every option is rigorously evaluated for urban design quality and impact upon the historic context as well as for operational efficiency etc. To date there has been little informed criticism in that respect. Perhaps English Heritage should be invited to comment.
Concerning consultation, the key-stage public consultation last summer confirmed a clear majority in favour of the project in principle and design development proceeded on that understanding. Subsequent iterations could not be discussed publicly unless and until tested and approved by TfL. Even now we have not reached that position. So of course the proposal(s) cannot be said to have got community support or otherwise, because the community has not seen anything. I think comments about the lack of consultation need to be seen in this context.
Unsurprisingly, the lack of information has generated rumour and uncertainty. The campaign slogan “Save Clapham Common” was disingenuous because the Common was never at risk, though it attracted signatures from non-residents at the traffic lights. Several signatories to the “Save” Campaign have felt misled and have retracted.
The majority of the Clapham Society’s Main Committee still supports the Gateway proposal in principle and anticipates that the membership at large will welcome the current revision now that it can at last be viewed on the web-sight. It should complete this project already begun in Venn Street, where the quality of improvement is very much appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
John Adams RIBA AADipl.(Cons)
Here is a reply from Steve, a member of Save Clapham Common. Kate Hoey MP has declared that she totally supports this letter and the points in it. Which means she supports the idea of 5 live stands in the square.
Dear John
You kindly copied me into your email to Mr Daniels, shown at the end of this message.
There are a number of points in your letter of the 2nd March to Mr Daniels (attached) that I would like to take issue with.
The Clapham Society
You write on Clapham Society notepaper but as far as I am aware you are not representing their agreed views. Whilst you have reported to The Clapham Society Committee, Annabel Allott, the Chair of the Society, has said to me (as a member) that members can present our views when the Society has seen a current drawing.
“Shocked”
I am surprised that you say that you are "shocked" to hear of TfL concerns. You attended the meetings of the 1st July and 12th September last year at Palestra House where TfL were quite clear that maintaining the current level of accessibility of the bus service to Old Town and avoiding new bus stands or bus stops near to residential property were their main criteria for providing funding.
Claim of more bus stands in Old Town than ever before.
The current Council proposal reduces the bus service to Old Town but at the same time requires two additional bus stops - both below residential property.
You say that you have learnt that TfL are now considering a proposal which puts more bus stands in Old Town than ever before.
Please could you say where you learnt this from?
I do not know of any proposal to increase the number of buses in Old Town and think that you must either have been misled or have misunderstood.
I am told by my neighbours, who attended all the meetings with TfL, that TfL or others have not put forward such a proposal.
As you know, Old Town has a current capacity of 9 live standing buses for the three bus routes 88, 417 and 322. The two proposals that have been discussed at TfL are;-
1. To slightly reduce the current accessibility and greatly reduce the number of buses by providing 4 live bus stands for routes 88 and 417 only.
2. Maintain the current accessibility and greatly reduce the number of stands to 5 live bus stands for routes 88, 417 and 322.
To make it clear, both proposals greatly reduce the current 9 bus stands and the second proposal maintains the current level of service by maintaining the existing three bus routes (88, 417 and 322).
You do seem to acknowledge this and undermine your earlier comments when you refer to the TfL "four bus proposal".
The Historic Environment
You talk about amenity, the historic environment and views of Holy Trinity Church . The Council’s proposal of 4 dead stands en bloc would be;
· 18.1m wide (wider than TfL's 4 live stands scheme).
· It appears that it is planned to put in a line of trees between the standing buses and the Rose & Crown. These will block views of these old buildings and the vista through to Holy Trinity Church .
· Create a perfect environment for an unwanted public drinking area by the Rose & Crown,
Dead or Live
I would suggest that the Council's dead stand scheme will;-
· Create much more "attendant paraphernalia". This scheme will have 6 bus stands / stops in Old Town .
· The 6 bus stands / stops will be marked with lines or raised kerbs. The bus boarding stop outside Sainsbury’s Local will require the pavement to be widened and include a bus shelter and the usual signage.
· To facilitate the supporting bus stop that the dead bus stands require, the delivery bay outside Sainsbury’s Local will have to be moved to the road leading from Grafton Square resulting in delivery vehicles having to drive through Grafton Square - quite often very early in the morning..
· Create unwanted noise and disturbance from the two additional bus stops - used 24 hours a day - that are situated outside Starbucks and Sainsbury's Local, both of which have residential above. The picture below shows the proposed bus stop location outside Starbucks.
· 4 live stands will be only be 4 stands and not require the two additional stops. Two shelters and signage will be required and raised kerb with pavements.
Rigorous evaluation and testing
I do find it strange that you are now requesting that each and every option is rigorously evaluated and tested. The original Option A scheme, which you were strongly supporting, was not properly evaluated or tested, despite the widespread and detailed criticism at the time. This resulted in two years work and I am told £250,000 expenditure being wasted trying to progress it.
Disingenuous
You say that "Save Clapham Common" is a disingenuous slogan. Perhaps I could correct you. It is a memorable website address, adopted because Lambeth’s original scheme “cut the Common” with a “Bus Wall”. It is not a slogan. The slogan that this well established group uses is “Help us to amend the Gateway Scheme so that it benefits all.”
You also say The Save Clapham Common Group attracted signatures (for our petitions) from non-residents at the traffic lights. Your statement is just wrong and I would assume to be deliberately misleading. We are happy to swear an affidavit to support this.
In total, the group raised 2,500 signatures, appealing to Lambeth to amend the Gateway Scheme....
What is disingenuous is that you do not refer to the newly launched web site.www.saveclaphamoldtown.com. This appears to be anonymous so it is not possible to see who is behind it. The site contains;-
· Information that is inaccurate and without foundation.
· Criticism of our MP based on false information.
It appears that the web site is an attempt at a smear campaign against our MP and the adoption of live stands.
It is disturbing that the anonymous website must have the support of some of the Council, especially since it appears that Lambeth released its plans to the anonymous site before it had even made them available to the public on its own website.
The architects Marks Barfield, who made the visual, have confirmed that they have not passed it to any parties other than Lambeth. …
Your letter to Mr Daniels also appears on this anonymous website. Can you advise me if you have consented to this?
All the locals that I have talked to want Old Town improved and the bus service maintained. It will be really sad if your actions result in the funding not being made available.
There has been far too much confrontation over the Gateway and far too little representation. The Council and the Steering Group react aggressively to any criticism. All along, as a group, we have endeavoured to be factual and reasonable but alas all that results is stirred personal passions and intransigence.
Kind regards
Steve Taylor
Save Clapham Common
And here is the reply to Steve's letter from Al Hardwick as John was out of the country at the time and we felt that these allegations had to be answered.
Dear all,
Firstly, thanks, Steve, for responding to John's letter. John is unfortunately away for some time, hence our reply. As your letter was cc'd to members of TfL along with other planners and decision makers it was necessary to highlight a few points and present some of our own. We have copied your letter below and made comments in red for everyone to read.
By introduction, I'm a resident of Fitzwilliam Road SW4. Myself and around 25 other local residents and business owners from the square, started the saveclaphamoldtown.com campaign early last week. I did actually make this quite clear to you on Tuesday night, Steve, when I introduced myself as Al from saveclaphamoldtown.com so it's a bit naughty of you to imply a smear campaign set up by an anonymous website.
We have no political agenda, solely an interest in the regeneration project. There is considerable public support for our campaign, 650+ and growing on facebook, most of whom we have obtained by word of mouth in just the last 9 days. We have collected 700+ signatures to a petition in just the last 4 days. We have only so far found one opposition, the Polygon group. We've talked to a lot of people and are yet to find a resident who supports them and the concept of live bus stands in the Old Town Square.
We and our supporters are requesting the implementation of the Clapham Regeneration Project as agreed by TfL and Lambeth Council on the 23rd Dec. We do not want live bus stands in the square. There is dispute on the number of live stands that are being proposed, the Polygon group suggest 5 in their letter below, so we take that as a minimum. Even just four stands and the accompanying platforms, shelters and signs will dominate the square which could be a wonderful public space as we saw in the plans at Tuesday's meeting.
We, the local residents, would like the bus dominance to be reduced to a minimum in the square, hence 4 dead stands and an increased public space with landscaping. At the same time we thoroughly support an efficient and smooth running bus service which is vital part of this project. We understand this to be Kate Hoey’s primary concern which we respect and are grateful for as we all rely on it. That said, the issues have been addressed and deemed acceptable in that TfL/Lambeth meeting on the 23rd December. The project works.
Our campaign has gone up very quickly, as has our support so there have been minor errors which we have corrected. We've also answered many queries in our attempt to inform the local community as openly and accurately as possible to what has really come down to two options for the Old Town Square and surrounding area and feed these views back to the planners and decision makers. Anyone is free to comment openly on our facebook wall.
I do thank you for taking the time to talk to me on Tuesday night, Steve, it was good to get an understanding of your objections to a seemingly beneficial scheme. You made this very clear when, after initial discussion on these benefits, you said, "yes, but we still have the 322 bus stopping on the Pavement", which runs past your house. So it was clear you'd like that to loop back into the Old Town , around the back of the Polygon where you live, rather than it stopping at the southern apex of the Polygon.
On a side note, we are very much hoping that representatives from TfL will attend the next meeting on Tuesday 20th March at 7pm in the Clapham Primary school. If Kate Hoey could spare the time too, that too would be very much appreciated.
Please read the letter below including our comments, apologies that it has now become quite long....
Many thanks and best wishes
Al Hardwick
www.saveclaphamoldtown.com
...................................................................
Dear John
You kindly copied me into your email to Mr Daniels, shown at the end of this message.
There are a number of points in your letter of the 2nd March to Mr Daniels (attached) that I would like to take issue with.
The Clapham Society
You write on Clapham Society notepaper but as far as I am aware you are not representing their agreed views. Whilst you have reported to The Clapham Society Committee, Annabel Allott, the Chair of the Society, has said to me (as a member) that members can present our views when the Society has seen a current drawing.
We've asked John to comment on his return. We've spoken to just one senior member who said "of course we support John's view". One does not make all though, so we will have to confirm at a later date.
“Shocked”
I am surprised that you say that you are "shocked" to hear of TfL concerns. You attended the meetings of the 1st July and 12th September last year at Palestra House where TfL were quite clear that maintaining the current level of accessibility of the bus service to Old Town and avoiding new bus stands or bus stops near to residential property were their main criteria for providing funding.
We were all shocked as TfL and Lambeth Council had agreed to the new proposal on 23rd Dec 2011. This plan is now under threat due to the behind-the-scene campaign for a minimum of 5 live stands directly to TfL of which nothing was published or mentioned on your campaign website or to the local community. We were unaware we had to defend the Clapham Regeneration Project.
Claim of more bus stands in Old Town than ever before.
The current Council proposal reduces the bus service to Old Town but at the same time requires two additional bus stops - both below residential property.
We’ve had informal discussions with some of the residents in the residential block above Starbucks. Initial contact suggests they prefer the views of 4 dead stands which provides a less 'bus dominated' square despite the arrival of a new bus stand. Birkins flower shop next to Starbucks and Temples agency opposite Sainsburys officially support the Regeneration project and saveclaphamoldtown campaign. The residents above sainsburys will benefit greatly from the redirection of traffic flow along the west side of the Square. We are approaching more businesses and residents to gain their view. There is NO SUPPORT for the live bus stand option, everyone who has learnt of this plan is horrified.
You say that you have learnt that TfL are now considering a proposal which puts more bus stands in Old Town than ever before.
Please could you say where you learnt this from?
I can’t answer for John on this point. I would agree that both options reduce the official number of bus stands in the square. John does refer to the addition of 2 new routes in the 1990’s, there is concern that further routes will be added in future. Guarantees to counter this concern would be greatly appreciated but populations shift and requirements change so I doubt this is possible, hence the concern that the hub develops and the Square is lost forever.
I do not know of any proposal to increase the number of buses in Old Town and think that you must either have been misled or have misunderstood.
I am told by my neighbours, who attended all the meetings with TfL, that TfL or others have not put forward such a proposal.
As you know, Old Town has a current capacity of 9 live standing buses for the three bus routes 88, 417 and 322. The two proposals that have been discussed at TfL are;-
1. To slightly reduce the current accessibility and greatly reduce the number of buses by providing 4 live bus stands for routes 88 and 417 only.
2. Maintain the current accessibility and greatly reduce the number of stands to 5 live bus stands for routes 88, 417 and 322.
To make it clear, both proposals greatly reduce the current 9 bus stands and the second proposal maintains the current level of service by maintaining the existing three bus routes (88, 417 and 322).
With your proposal for 5 live stands above, passengers would need platforms, signs, lighting and shelters, there would be a huge amount of public space lost. This is exactly what the local population do not want. The 700 signatures we have collected in just 4 days is testament to this. There is absolute outrage that the regeneration project is under threat and that nobody was aware of it.
Your proposal also proposes a worrying reduction in safety. Passengers, including mothers with children, elderly and the disabled will be forced to cross the road to the bus island.
We need to highlight that it’s also no coincidence of course that putting the 322 bus through the old town takes it round the back of your property on the polygon, reducing the number of services down the pavement, where you live, to just one.
You do seem to acknowledge this and undermine your earlier comments when you refer to the TfL "four bus proposal".
The Historic Environment
You talk about amenity, the historic environment and views of Holy Trinity Church . The Council’s proposal of 4 dead stands en bloc would be;
· 18.1m wide (wider than TfL's 4 live stands scheme). This isn't true, the width is 15m. The plans for both dead and live bus stands were very clear at the meeting on Tuesday. The four live bus stands took up a far larger space within the square (although you are now proposing 5). The reasons are discussed above. The local population want to the dominance of the buses in the square to be reduced to a minimum, hence the acceptance of four dead stands with landscaping.
· It appears that it is planned to put in a line of trees between the standing buses and the Rose & Crown. These will block views of these old buildings and the vista through to Holy Trinity Church . Sympathetic planting will be employed to ensure the best views from all angles, again, this was very clear from the 3D graphics presented on Tuesday, which you made no reference or objection to at the time.
· Create a perfect environment for an unwanted public drinking area by the Rose & Crown, Again, this issue was dealt with at Tuesday’s meeting. The demographic of the old town is very different to that of the high street. There are no late licensed premises, there is a zero drinking policy (ie whether a vagrant or young professional) no alcohol is allowed to be drunk other than on the licensed premises. The business owners and residents protect that policy along with community support officers. This same policy is in place on Venn st. Despite having bars and cafes, and being right off the high st. they don't have any drinking problems.
Dead or Live
I would suggest that the Council's dead stand scheme will;-
· Create much more "attendant paraphernalia". This scheme will have 6 bus stands / stops in Old Town . There won't be any attendant paraphernalia for the dead stands in the square which improves the design and aesthetics of the space. This is instrumental to the project.
· The 6 bus stands / stops will be marked with lines or raised kerbs. The bus boarding stop outside Sainsbury’s Local will require the pavement to be widened and include a bus shelter and the usual signage. The traffic flow outside Sainsburys will be reduced to almost zero with the introduction of 2-way traffic along the west side of the square. There is width for cars to pass anyway with the relocation of parking spaces, as discussed on Tuesday. No overall parking spaces will be lost. Local residents preference is discussed above and we have confirmed support from businesses directly adjacent to, or opposite the proposed new bus stops. They can see the benefits for the square as a whole.
· To facilitate the supporting bus stop that the dead bus stands require, the delivery bay outside Sainsbury’s Local will have to be moved to the road leading from Grafton Square resulting in delivery vehicles having to drive through Grafton Square - quite often very early in the morning..
The proposal for the delivery bay is to be moved forward to allow room for both bus and delivery lorry. Like you, we would thoroughly oppose any plan to put delivery lorries through Grafton Square . We will happily work together on this should it arise.
· Create unwanted noise and disturbance from the two additional bus stops - used 24 hours a day - that are situated outside Starbucks and Sainsbury's Local, both of which have residential above. The picture below shows the proposed bus stop location outside Starbucks. Local residents and businesses prefer the improved view and enviroment to the live bus stands as discussed above. They are also thinking of the bigger picture, the Square and community as a whole.
· 4 live stands will be only be 4 stands and not require the two additional stops. Two shelters and signage will be required and raised kerb with pavements. Yes! …and zero signage, shelters and platforms within the square itself, highly preferable to the live bus stand concept. One of the remits of the project was to minimise the dominance of buses, the Regeneration Project with 4 dead stands does an excellent job of that. The impact of the alternative live bus station design is devastating.
Rigorous evaluation and testing
I do find it strange that you are now requesting that each and every option is rigorously evaluated and tested. The original Option A scheme, which you were strongly supporting, was not properly evaluated or tested, despite the widespread and detailed criticism at the time. This resulted in two years work and I am told £250,000 expenditure being wasted trying to progress it. This is hearsay, there is no evidence to support the £250k expenditure and there is no indication on what expenditure would be expected at this stage anyway. The fact that the proposal for dead stands has been passed by TfL and Lambeth means we have a solution that is aesthetically pleasing and feasible.
Disingenuous
You say that "Save Clapham Common" is a disingenuous slogan. Perhaps I could correct you. It is a memorable website address, adopted because Lambeth’s original scheme “cut the Common” with a “Bus Wall”. It is not a slogan. The slogan that this well established group uses is “Help us to amend the Gateway Scheme so that it benefits all.”
You also say The Save Clapham Common Group attracted signatures (for our petitions) from non-residents at the traffic lights. Your statement is just wrong and I would assume to be deliberately misleading. We are happy to swear an affidavit to support this.
Some of the signature collation tactics have been thoroughly questionable with your line of questioning ie “Do you want to see the Common split in half?” We have many witnesses to this fact who will also sign an affadavit. More importantly the saveclaphamcommon website makes no reference to the alternative, which is a live bus station in the square. Your campaign is deliberately misleading and uninformative regarding these alternatives. Several signatories have rescinded their support since learning this, as have ALL business in the Old Town square who now support the Clapham regeneration project and our campaign. I would challenge you to collect your signatures again now that local residents know these alternatives. Where is your support now? You do not address the alternatives on your website or within your campaign.
In total, the group raised 2,500 signatures, appealing to Lambeth to amend the Gateway Scheme.... over 2.5 years, using questionable tactics, with two separate petitions (so the signatures may be doubled up) to people who you didn’t educate as to the alternatives ie several live bus stands. Would these people still support you? Who are they? In contrast Saveclaphamoldtown.com have raised 700 signatures in 4 days supporting the Regeneration Project with 4 dead stands, with a totally open campaign, feel free to visit our website and comment on our facebook wall.
What is disingenuous is that you do not refer to the newly launched web site.www.saveclaphamoldtown.com. This appears to be anonymous so it is not possible to see who is behind it. The site contains;-
· Information that is inaccurate and without foundation.
· Criticism of our MP based on false information.
It appears that the web site is an attempt at a smear campaign against our MP and the adoption of live stands. This is ridiculous; you met 2 of us from saveclaphamoldtown at the meeting on Tuesday. We had to put together our campaign over a very short space of time, addressing queries and correcting inaccuracies as they arose. We have recently posted in the faq ‘who we are’ in response to a request from a disruptive commentator.
It's interesting to note that the same disruptive commentator used the exact phrase 'smear campaign against our MP' as is used above and then disappeared and deleted their facebook account as quickly as it had been created.
It was in fact disappointing responses from their local MP that these residents were forced to take action themselves to raise awareness within the local community. We have no political agenda, we are simply interested in an outcome that is vastly preferable to us and our neighbours. This isn’t a ‘smear campaign’ against live stands and Kate Hoey, it’s just a campaign against live stands and a campaign to support the Regeneration project in its current format, nothing else.
It is disturbing that the anonymous website must have the support of some of the Council, especially since it appears that Lambeth released its plans to the anonymous site before it had even made them available to the public on its own website.
Simply not true. A basic phone call to Lambeth council would have told you that the plans were available on the Lambeth council website. We have as much contact with the council as do you. We believe open dialogue is essential for a successful resolution, as is flexibility and compromise.
The architects Marks Barfield, who made the visual, have confirmed that they have not passed it to any parties other than Lambeth. …who then published it on their publicly available website, please see above.
Your letter to Mr Daniels also appears on this anonymous website. Can you advise me if you have consented to this? Yes, John supports the campaign and gave permission to post his letter.
All the locals that I have talked to want Old Town improved and the bus service maintained. It will be really sad if your actions result in the funding not being made available. Exactly the point of the saveclaphamoldtown campaign. We were motivated to act due to the potential derailment of the plans put forward and agreed by Lambeth council and TfL on 23rd Dec 2011. We believe the diversion from these acceptable and fully agreed plans came from the Polygon group and Kate Hoey directly.
There has been far too much confrontation over the Gateway and far too little representation. The Council and the Steering Group react aggressively to any criticism. All along, as a group, we have endeavoured to be factual and reasonable but alas all that results is stirred personal passions and intransigence.
Ironically I think your last statement accurately reflects the actions of the Polygon group. You’ve never been clear about what you are petitioning for, only against.
The consequence of your campaign (ie several live bus stands dominating the square) does not get one word of mention on your website. Every local resident and business owner has been horrified to learn of this possibility.
You are clearly trying to reduce the bus services that travel in front of your properties and are not thinking for the community as a whole. It was evident from the plans at last night's meeting that the Polygon stand to gain greatly from the Regeneration project as it stands, but that is simply not enough. They also want to reduce the bus services so they swing around the back of their properties.
In contrast, the recent saveclaphamoldtown campaign is entirely honest about all communication and proposals. We are here to inform and encourage residents to talk with their neighbours and friends who visit the area. The reaction to the information we relayed to our neighbours regarding live bus stands was a one of horror and the resultant support, which has been largely viral, completely overwhelming.
If you agree with this, please like our SAVE CLAPHAM OLD TOWN FACEBOOK PAGE and help us stop this travesty becoming reality.
