Out with the Old... Network Rail tell businesses to vacate Atlantic Road arches

[Angellic]

I'm still not sure who is this in aid of (the gazebos and the less market stalls etc?)
Plus. Look! Anti-piss paint is a thing.
View attachment 79497

I saw something about the paint recently. Here's one article.

Relief as San Francisco tests out urine-repellent paint

 

[Tricky Skills]

Once again, not much of an update, but the FoI asking to see correspondence between Lambeth Council and Network Rail is still ongoing. It has been delayed until December, but is still being considered.

 

[Tricky Skills]

I've finally got a response for the FoI. It took a rejection, an internal review, and then approaching the Information Commissioner to receive some of the correspondence between Lambeth Council and Network. 10MB of data has been sent over. A lot of it is redacted. Network Rail state that some information has been withheld.

It's an awful lot of correspondence to got through. I've tried to put together a timeline for Brixton Buzz.

Some of the key points that stand out for me:

Lambeth Council was holding site meetings with Network Rail in August 2014. Cllr Jack Hopkins has stated on the record that he didn't know about the evictions until November 2014. Local traders were finally told in February 2015. That's five months of being kept in the dark for Brixton businesses

It is also worth stating that correspondence between Lambeth Council and Network Rail about the evictions could have been taking place even earlier. August 2014 is the date in which the FoI was framed.

Someone at Lambeth Council talks of the 'political imperative strengthened' following the Labour landslide in the local elections.

Cllr Hopkins talks about 'holding off the rebel rousing' in December 2014, ahead of Network Rail going public in February 2015.

Joint media strategies against the backlash were organised between Lambeth Council and Network Rail. There is talk of 'shutting down' the issue by... not putting anyone up for interview.

I'm sure there are many other points to explore. We have published the full data trawl on the Buzz piece for others to go through.

What matters now is how the local traders respond. They already knew that they were up against Network Rail. But to also find out that Lambeth Council has been working closely with NR over the evictions?

 

[editor]

It's a brilliant piece of investigative journalism. In the absence of anyone else holding the all-powerful Lambeth to account, this kind of reporting is becoming more and more important. Well done!

 

[brixtonblade]

I've finally got a response for the FoI. It took a rejection, an internal review, and then approaching the Information Commissioner to receive some of the correspondence between Lambeth Council and Network. 10MB of data has been sent over. A lot of it is redacted. Network Rail state that some information has been withheld.

It's an awful lot of correspondence to got through. I've tried to put together a timeline for Brixton Buzz.

Some of the key points that stand out for me:

Lambeth Council was holding site meetings with Network Rail in August 2014. Cllr Jack Hopkins has stated on the record that he didn't know about the evictions until November 2014. Local traders were finally told in February 2015. That's five months of being kept in the dark for Brixton businesses

It is also worth stating that correspondence between Lambeth Council and Network Rail about the evictions could have been taking place even earlier. August 2014 is the date in which the FoI was framed.

Someone at Lambeth Council talks of the 'political imperative strengthened' following the Labour landslide in the local elections.

Cllr Hopkins talks about 'holding off the rebel rousing' in December 2014, ahead of Network Rail going public in February 2015.

Joint media strategies against the backlash were organised between Lambeth Council and Network Rail. There is talk of 'shutting down' the issue by... not putting anyone up for interview.

I'm sure there are many other points to explore. We have published the full data trawl on the Buzz piece for others to go through.

What matters now is how the local traders respond. They already knew that they were up against Network Rail. But to also find out that Lambeth Council has been working closely with NR over the evictions?

Wow

This has to be a resignation issue for Hopkins?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wow

This has to be a resignation issue for Hopkins?

That's about as likely as Jacko cutting his dick off.

 

[Winot]

Is it possible to put in a very specific FOI asking for a copy of the notes from the Sept 2014 Hopkins/NR meeting referred to?

 

[Tricky Skills]

Is it possible to put in a very specific FOI asking for a copy of the notes from the Sept 2014 Hopkins/NR meeting referred to?

The response would no doubt come back that no notes were taken. It sounds like it was an informal meeting, and certainly not an one the record piece of Council business.

Which seems to happen quite a lot...

I know of some Cllr's who now use personal email addresses for some correspondence. This gets around those pesky types putting in FoI's.

 

[bimble]

They really should have stuck to face to face meetings under an arch somewhere.

What does the last sentence on this email mean ? (doc 45)
Who is looking after 'the politicoes' ?




(Underneath are a list of shiny happy press-release statements about the good intentions of NR etc.)

 

[Winot]

The response would no doubt come back that no notes were taken. It sounds like it was an informal meeting, and certainly not an one the record piece of Council business.

Which seems to happen quite a lot...

Looks like the intention was to produce a note:

 

[Winot]

I know of some Cllr's who now use personal email addresses for some correspondence. This gets around those pesky types putting in FoI's.

Didn't work for Hillary...

 

[trabuquera]

Tricky Skills : terrific reporting, imho you should be bouncing copies of all this stuff straight to Private Eye Rotten Boroughs and even 'the competition' (S London Post, local news radio + tv etc as well) so they can join in giving NR / Lambeth a good going over.

 

[editor]

I have to thank them for my new tag line.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Tricky Skills : terrific reporting, imho you should be bouncing copies of all this stuff straight to Private Eye Rotten Boroughs and even 'the competition' (S London Post, local news radio + tv etc as well) so they can join in giving NR / Lambeth a good going over.

Thanks.

Private Eye are already on to it, apparently.

 

[teuchter]

Cllr Jack Hopkins has stated on the record that he didn't know about the evictions until November 2014.

Are you referring to this statement or another one?

He says that November was when he was first told they were "actually going to do something". The files suggest he may have known that NR were looking at the possibility of doing something with the arches previous to that, but that's not quite the same thing is it?

 

[Tricky Skills]

Are you referring to this statement or another one?

He says that November was when he was first told they were "actually going to do something". The files suggest he may have known that NR were looking at the possibility of doing something with the arches previous to that, but that's not quite the same thing is it?

Please read the Buzz piece.

Ta.

"We are willing to give Jacko the benefit of the doubt here. It might simply be that the site visits for August didn’t mention the evictions; or it might even be that the redacted source at the Town Hall didn’t tell Cllr Hopkins about the plans back in August – a move that would show tremendous disrespect for a high ranking Cabinet member."

 

[teuchter]

Please read the Buzz piece.

Ta.

"We are willing to give Jacko the benefit of the doubt here. It might simply be that the site visits for August didn’t mention the evictions; or it might even be that the redacted source at the Town Hall didn’t tell Cllr Hopkins about the plans back in August – a move that would show tremendous disrespect for a high ranking Cabinet member."

I have read it.

We are being extremely generous to Jacko by going along with his claim that he first new about the planned evictions in November 2014, despite official correspondence between the Council – for which he serves as a senior Cabinet member – and Network Rail taking place two months earlier.

You have worded things in such a way that you don't actually accuse him of lying but (my bold) imply that it's unlikely he's telling the truth.

It looks fairly simple to me - he likely knew NR were thinking of doing something with the arches prior to November 2014 (because they made a pre-planning enquiry to Lambeth, normal for any development) but didn't know they were "actually going to do anything" until that point. That's what he says and I don't see any evidence to suggest he was lying, nor is there any need to invoke a theory about sources at Lambeth keeping information from him.

 

[leanderman]

What was the councillor's comment in response to this story?

 

[Gramsci]

As someone who took part in the consultation meetings for the Central Brixton site ( The arches, the Pop Brixton site, The Rec after reading Tricky Skills excellent article I am really pissed off. Tricky Skills has done a service for local democracy.

Its now proven that the Council have been working closely with NR to try to minimise any adverse publicity that the eviction of the arches might produce. The redacted senior officers have a lot to answer for. I expect some of them attended the consultation meetings for Brixton Central Masterplan giving us all the guff about how we are all in it together "co-producing" a masterplan for the Central Brixton site.

That should not be the role of a local authority. Lambeth have a role in planning. They also deal with planning applications. They have forgotten its there role imo to stick up for the people not big organisations like NR. BTW I thought dealing with planning applications was supposed to be non political?

What was the point of attending all those consultation meeting?

Whatever the exact date that Cllr Jacko knew about the evictions he said ( and I heard him say it at a meeting) that he knew about it before Christmas. We who gave up our free time were never told.

We who attended were kept in the dark. There never was a follow up meeting.

On the 15th January this is what NR say to the Council:

This is bollocks. The consultation on the masterplan was not a "different animal". I remember people saying they wanted to retain existing business. That the diversity of the present business is something the liked etc. NR were present at these meetings and said nothing whilst they were emailing officers about there plans.

I was used as consultation fodder whilst senior officers in Lambeth, with Cllr Jackos knowledge , were discussing the destruction of an important well loved part of Brixton community.

Cllr Jacko said on record as saying November at least he knew this . Therefore he knew what was senior officers and NR were discussing as he was copied into emails. And he didnt tell us the people he is supposed to represent and who he encouraged to take an active role in supposedly co producing a masterplan. Remember his blog piece about getting involved or being left out?

My challenge to you is find out what’s going on, make sure your voice is heard or sit back and let it pass you by. It’s your future.

Whose future is it anyway? Get involved or lose out….

What a load of bollox.

 

[Gramsci]

Its worth sticking up here High Definition comment at end of Jasons article:

Another thanks to Brixton Buzz for taking this up.

I think some of the most revealing documents you unearthed are in Annex 5. This shows that Network Rail sent Lambeth a request for pre-application planning advice for what they call the Triangle Site (i.e. arches bordered by Station Road, Atlantic Road and Pope’s Road) on 27th August. Network Rail’s letter requesting the advice isn’t included in the Annex, but it does include Lambeth’s formal response (letter dated 9th October). From this it’s clear that Lambeth officers were aware as early as August that Network Rail were planning to carry out work in the arches, including knocking smaller arches together, which would involve displacing existing tenants.

As you say, it’s hard to believe that none of the Lambeth officers who knew about this bothered to mention it to Jack Hopkins.

I attended some of the public workshops and events organised by Lambeth and Network Rail over the summer and early autumn of 2014 on the “Brixton Central Masterplan”. Some of us posted on Urban 75 at the time, mainly with concerns about existing businesses would be priced out of the area and replaced with the usual chains, etc. However, the impression we came got from the Lambeth and Network Rail people present was that these were just early discussions and it would be a couple of years before the Masterplan got to planning application stage.

It was probably naive of me to believe this, but it’s now clear that Lambeth officers and Network Rail knew all along about the plan to clear the arches in 2015/6, well before the Masterplan would be se were A number.

For the record, I noticed that the emails in Annex 1 refer to an email from the Brixton Society – I’m pretty certain this is a reference to an email sent at the end of August to the Lambeth officer whose name has been redacted, on behalf of the Brixton Society. The email was about the Masterplan proposals which Lambeth had just made public (which we were very unhappy with), didn’t refer to the shops in the arches in Station Road and Atlantic Road (we didn’t know about NR’s plans for these at the time) and wouldn’t have thought relevant to the FOI request.

ho

 

[leanderman]

More interested in a comment from the councillor - or have I missed it?

 

[Gramsci]

More interested in a comment from the councillor - or have I missed it?

I wasn’t answering your question.

Perhaps you could ask a Cllr? If you would find there comment more interesting than whats posted here.

 

[Gramsci]

More interested in a comment from the councillor - or have I missed it?

I expect the Council response will be not to respond to Jasons article.

 

[leanderman]

Sure. Usually a story like this carries a comment, or 'no comment', from the accused party.

 

[Gramsci]

Sure. Usually a story like this carries a comment, or 'no comment', from the accused party.

In this case it doesn’t. Not a problem for me.

If you are so concerned you could send the article to Jack and ask his opinion.

Lambeth have press officers who are paid to deal with this kind of thing. Lambeth is a powerful organisation it can look after itself. If Lambeth are so upset about Jasons article they can get the press officers to release a press release. Its what they are paid for.

A friend of mine who works in media once told me that one way to deal with adverse publicity is not to engage with it. As this will give it more credence. And you can end up with it more in the public eye. As well as being asked more questions.

(It looks like one of the tactics that Council and NR used.)

 

[leanderman]

In this case it doesn’t. Not a problem for me.

If you are so concerned you could send the article to Jack and ask his opinion.

Lambeth have press officers who are paid to deal with this kind of thing. Lambeth is a powerful organisation it can look after itself. If Lambeth are so upset about Jasons article they can get the press officers to release a press release. Its what they are paid for.

A friend of mine who works in media once told me that one way to deal with adverse publicity is not to engage with it. As this will give it more credence.

I didn't publish the story - it's not my job to seek out a comment, no comment or refused to comment.

 

[Gramsci]

I didn't publish the story - it's not my job to seek out a comment, no comment or refused to comment.

Neither is its Jasons. He is not paid to do any of this hunting around getting FOIs and reading pages of pdf and then summarising it for others like me to read.

As I said Lambeth has the resources to respond if they want.

 

[leanderman]

I find stories more credible when comment has been sought.

 

[editor]

I find stories more credible when comment has been sought.

Feel free to add that much needed 'credibility' by contacting the councillor yourself, although don't be surprised if you don't get an answer.

I think Jason has done a real service to the community here. If only others - particularly the ones on the sidelines who are so quick to snipe and nitpick - were prepared to get off their arses and put so much time and energy into holding Lambeth to account on matters that are of real importance.

 

[CH1]

Sure. Usually a story like this carries a comment, or 'no comment', from the accused party.

I agree in a way - but surely Urban 75 posters/commentators are giving a personal opinion.

Regarding Brixton Buzz - I've always thought of this as a sort of half-way house between comment and factual reporting. It is not claiming to be the journal of record, like say the South London Press might have done in its hey-day when it was an independent local paper.

I think I share your feeling on one point however. Name calling of councillors is disrespectful. I was a councillor once, and I think that jibes at councillors are not good, because they actually aim to hurt and in a way perhaps evocative of playground bullying.

Jason is doing a good job - but I think if he wants to curl his lip at Jack Hopkins he should remember that Jack Hopkins is Councillor Hopkins (or Mr Hopkins) - unless by clear mutual understanding (i.e. "Paddy" Ashdown).

Allocating a disrespectful nick-name is all very well, but it is also a form of "ad hominem" that is personalising the issue - which I'm sure none of us want to do!