• About
  • Contact Me
  • Archive

OurCity.London

Investigative journalism into the town planning and development industries

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Financial Viability
  • Photography
  • Write for OurCity.London
  • May 16, 2022
You are here: Home / Case Studies / Protest and Democracy in Planning – The Brixton Arches

Protest and Democracy in Planning – The Brixton Arches

August 11, 2016 By George Turner Leave a Comment

Which side are you on

If planning authorities refuse to listen to the public can they really complain when faced with protest? The case of Lambeth and the campaign to #savebrixtonarches

For years few have paid much attention to meetings of the Lambeth Planning Committee, but last week emotions boiled over. Protesters held up banners and threw glitter at councillors as the public shouted ‘shame on you’. The police were called to escort councillors from the building. The issue at stake was the redevelopment of railway arches in Brixton, South London.

#savebrixtonarches

Brixton railway station is elevated on a 19th century viaduct and under it, the railway arches have become the heart of this traditionally working class neighbourhood. Along the arches run shops and cafes serving the variety of Brixton’s diverse communities. Surrounding the arches is a thriving market where Brixton’s residents have shopped for decades.

Arches

In recent years, as house prices in central London have rocketed, a new community of immigrants have arrived in places like Brixton. Young, white and wealthy professionals have looked to places like Brixton to buy property.

Pop Brixton

Popup Brixton_01

With this new community has come new shops. The chinese fast food restaurant has become an estate agent, Foxtons. The most visible change has been the development of Pop Brixton.

Pop Brixton is a collection of shipping containers marketed as a ‘community of independent retailers’. In reality it is an upmarket open-air food hall for Brixton’s wealthier visitors. It was built on a former council owned car park and was controversial because residents had wanted the council to convert the area into a public open space. But despite that, Pop Brixton does not displace existing traders in the area, and probably provides some additional footfall to them, although they serve very different communities. Enter Pop Brixton and you see a clientele which is almost exclusively white. The world outside Pop Brixton is very different.

Inside pop brixton. Spot the Rastafarian
Inside pop brixton. Spot the Rastafarian

Displacement

The Brixton Arches development is different. Network Rail has seen the potential to cash in on the newly-arrived higher income residents. It wants to refurbish the arches under Brixton station. Existing tenants will be able to return, but of course refurbished accommodation means higher rents and higher prices. The kind of prices charged by independent retailers in places like Pop Brixton. For many retailers that have spent years serving the low-income communities of Brixton, that isn’t an option.

Save the brixton arches2

Although there has been increasing disquiet around the gentrification of Brixton over the last few years, the campaign to save the Brixton Arches had a particular resonance. The public realised that through changes in the built environment a community was being priced out of their area. Urban planning was being used a tool to force out one group of people because they are paid less than others and can’t afford to buy goods in shops paying high rents.

The power to shape our communities

Lambeth Council claimed to be listening. Councillors have said that they have negotiated a better deal with Network Rail for the shops currently in the arches. The reality is that traders were offered a terrible deal and Lambeth Council simply managed to secure a bad one instead. No one is convinced and nor should they be; the new deal means above-inflation rent rises every year for the next eight years. Many of the traders appeared at the protest last week.

Lambeth Council had the power to shape the area though its planning powers, but has chosen not to use it. Brixton is part of a conservation area, and Lambeth Council’s planning committee is required in law to pay ‘special attention’ to the preservation of the area’s character. That character is defined in law as being historic as well as aesthetic.

Last week councillors voted to approve Network Rail’s plans with only one councillor, Jo Simpson, opposing the plans. The decision led to the scenes of protest inside the council meeting.

A failure of democracy

Lambeth Council are now claiming that their meeting was attacked by a ‘hardcore mob’ who were intent on disrupting the meeting with ‘aggressive behaviour’. According to the Evening Standard, the council are seeking to review ‘security arrangements’ in light of the protests.

If council officers were indeed threatened, then that is wholly unacceptable, but video evidence of the event shows that the actions of protesters appeared to be nothing more than a vocal and demonstrative but peaceful demonstration.

Anger as Lambeth council votes for regeneration of Brixton Arches from Ross Domoney on Vimeo.

Before the council seeks to clamp down on protest, it needs to recognise how their own behaviour contributed to the scenes inside the council last Tuesday.

Dealing with criticism is not something that Lambeth does well. Admitting they were wrong, even less so. In 2014 Lambeth’s Labour party swept the board at council elections, winning 59 of 63 council seats on 53% of the popular vote.

In that time they have expelled a councillor for speaking out against library closures and amongst other things, the Brixton Arches. The council has spent tens of thousands of pounds hiring top QCs to defend the indefensible through the courts, such as the decision to demolish a council estate, Cressingham Gardens, based on an unlawful consultation.

In urban planning Lambeth Council have sought to systematically exclude the voice of the public, whilst giving a greater voice to the development industry in decisions about our communities.

The council has established what it calls a ‘strategic planning board’. The existence of this group is not advertised anywhere on Lambeth’s website. It is attended by senior officials, the Leader of the Council, the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration. No minutes or agendas are published and the public is not invited. The role of the planning board is to provide a ‘steer’ to developers on whether their schemes are acceptable to the council in principle.

The practice is prejudice institutionalised. Development proposals will come to the board at an early stage, before much of the important detail has been established. Once it has given a ‘positive steer’ then it will be difficult for the council and councillors to refuse the scheme; the developer has the upper hand in all subsequent negotiations.

Once a development proposal has been finalised it is the policy of the council to invite in major developers to give private briefings about their plans to councillors on the planning committee. These so called ‘technical briefings’ last hours. They are not open to the public and no minutes are taken. If a developer were to provide false information at these meetings (which has happened), there would be no way for any other interested parties to challenge them.

After what can be years of constant engagement with the council and councillors by developers, objectors are limited to a two-minute slot in a public meeting on the night of the decision. It is impossible to see how this process could be considered a fair hearing, a right which is guaranteed in law, but ignored by Lambeth’s procedure.

Lambeth councillors can complain about being shouted at last week, but if the council refuses to hear the heart-felt and entirely legitimate concerns of people seeking to protect their communities, it should be of little surprise if the public respond with protest. After all, how else are we to have our voices heard?

Filed Under: Brixton, Case Studies Tagged With: Brixton, Economy, Gentrification, Lambeth, Network Rail, Protest

Comment Policy: I would dearly love to hear your thoughts. However I ask that you please only use your real name and keep your comments focused on the issues raised by this article. If you want to contact me privately you can do so by sending me a message directly. My contact details are included on this site. Spam, or abusive comments will be deleted

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

What we are writing about

Investigative journalism telling the real story of contemporary London. In particular we are interested in:

Planning, development and affordable housing

Estate Regeneration and compulsory purchase

Bad practice and fraud in the property and development industry

But any stories which give an insight into how the economy and places of London are changing are welcome. If you have a story you are interested in please connect with us using the buttons below.

About Me

George TurnerGeorge Turner - an investigative journalist digging the dirt on London's property and development industry Read More

Archives

  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • December 2015

Recent Comments

  • John on Lockdown Landlords Acquitted
  • Concerned Citizens (@dequacivis) on The Battersea Power Station affordable housing scandal: How Wandsworth Gave away over 1000 affordable homes to a failing developer
  • HCLG Report Highlights ‘Lockdown’ as a significant problem – Hanworth.org on Lockdown landlord convicted for breaches in Planning Act
  • Hussain on The Housing Crisis
  • Ben Jamin' on The Housing Crisis

Tags

8 Albert Embankment Affordable Housing BNP Paribas Camden Canary Wharf Canary Wharf Group Canon A1 caroline pidgeon Compulsory Purchase Daylight DCLG Development development professionals Estate Regeneration Foreign Ownership GLA Planning Committee Heygate Isle of Dogs King's College Knight Frank Lambeth LFEPA Mayor of London Neighbourhood planning Offshore Planning Protest Quod RIBA RICS RTPI Sadiq Khan Savills Shell Shell Centre sian berry South Bank Spinwatch Sue Foster surveyors Viability Viability Consultants Wandsworth Westminster Wood Wharf

Recent Comments

  • John on Lockdown Landlords Acquitted
  • Concerned Citizens (@dequacivis) on The Battersea Power Station affordable housing scandal: How Wandsworth Gave away over 1000 affordable homes to a failing developer
  • HCLG Report Highlights ‘Lockdown’ as a significant problem – Hanworth.org on Lockdown landlord convicted for breaches in Planning Act
  • Hussain on The Housing Crisis
  • Ben Jamin' on The Housing Crisis

Newsletter

Subscribe to my newsletter

Never miss a story. I will never pass on your details and will email you no more than once a week.

Please wait...

Thank you for subscribing

Copyright © 2022 George Turner · Website powered by WordPress using the Genesis Framework · Log in