I was given a timed 2 mins to argue the case. So I did some internet research and quoted Lambeth Council's own policies about safeguarding historic buildings in the area / pubs / the cultural environment of Brixton etc. etc. blah. blah., but there were other things in place which rendered those arguments pointless in the eyes of the law (the CA could, apparently, be legally converted into a Tesco's anyway regardless of the outcome tonight or be legally demolished, regardless of how likely these arguments are). Thus the planning department told the councilors they had to vote against, even though all six expressed various regrets, as if they didn't, they could face an expensive appeal, plus they didn't really have a legal leg to stand on. Thus four councilors voted for the demolition, all said it was regrettable. One voted against and one abstained. The "best" thing to come out of the meeting was that three councilors argued what the policies regarding pub / building protection are actually for if they don't work in practice, and it was agreed that they would look into this - but then, what's the point? That seems a little too late for me. They also said that they would "try" to keep the fixtures and fittings from the Canterbury Arms and offer them for use elsewhere (the ridiculousness of this counter-argument got some laughs, at least). Regarding the lack of proper affordable housing, they again said that this had been considered and was OK in the eyes of the law.
