Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Potent Whisper - who I guess Peck regards as part of the "hardcore"- has impressed me by his unflagging support for the Arches. He has used art to protest. The streetart, T shirts, banners and actions have been important to keep the campaign in the public eye.

The Labour party could learn something from this.
 
Potent Whisper - who I guess Peck regards as part of the "hardcore"- has impressed me by his unflagging support for the Arches. He has used art to protest. The streetart, T shirts, banners and actions have been important to keep the campaign in the public eye.

The Labour party could learn something from this.
Yeah, he's been great and done a lot to help keep the issue in the public eye.
 
So can anyone answer my question about whether it would legally be (or have been) possible for Lambeth to impose rent caps on the arches premises, via the planning process or otherwise?
 
I don't think that's possible in planning terms - I've never heard of a planning condition along those lines. I suppose it might be possible if the local authority were the owner of the buildings in question, but not sure even then if it would be enforceable.
 
Regarding security at meetings there seems no logical reason why the council chamber has been boarded up for the last year.
After all the council's "Development partners" are currently working on adjacent sites - not the Town Hall.

When the council chamber was available 5 years ago I recall when the Mayor refused to take a petition on the demolition of Lambeth College, there was a major disruption from the gallery stopping the Full Council meeting before it even started.

When the council choose to piss people off in the interests of developers and gentrification it always causes emotions to run high. The Lambeth College issue led to the Full Council meeting being suspended for an hour whilst it was agreed that the petition would be heard the following meeting.

Meanwhile despite the council's own security guards being unable to control the disgruntled students/UNISON members etc in the gallery the council chose to negotiate rather than call the Police.

What has changed now? Why do they now call the police and intimate that council meetings may in future be held IN CAMERA, or before a vetted audience?
 
So can anyone answer my question about whether it would legally be (or have been) possible for Lambeth to impose rent caps on the arches premises, via the planning process or otherwise?
Why not. Are you saying if they did then Network Rail would go to appeal to have the agreement on rent levels removed?
 
It seems like there is a lot of confusion among traders, several have got in touch asking for information because there is no definite date that they all agree on for leaving. Some are preparing to leave next week, but others are suggesting they will get an extension due to legal challenges. I'm not sure what is true and what isn't, but the upshot is that no one seems to know for sure what is happening.
 
It seems like there is a lot of confusion among traders, several have got in touch asking for information because there is no definite date that they all agree on for leaving. Some are preparing to leave next week, but others are suggesting they will get an extension due to legal challenges. I'm not sure what is true and what isn't, but the upshot is that no one seems to know for sure what is happening.
Pretty much par for the course. :(
 
The library campaign group "Defend the Ten" in News from Crystal Palace blog

They are also critical of Lambeth Press statement. Which is not just about the Arches planning meeting. The Lambeth press statement is trying to say a series of meetings have been disrupted by the "same group" a "small hardcore mob". The smear campaign by the Council is also directed at other groups.

The Lambeth press statement is trying to argue that :



And the Council leader Lib Peck is quoted:



As Defend the Ten point out there isn’t a small hardcore mob. Defend the Ten quote what Cllr Rachel said about the way the Council operates:



Rachel has been shown to be right. And the "people on the outside" are getting more angry.

This is all getting pretty nasty. Trying to make it appear its just a small group who are just intent on disruption is rubbish. Council should have realised this when they almost lost a seat to the Greens.

"Getting pretty nasty"?

C'mon mate, we both know that this current crop of shits have been at it - for the most part - since 2006, with a few changes en route. This is more of the same.

What's changed is that a tipping point appears to have been reached, and people are pretty much operating on the basis of "I'm not going to take it any more".

Lambeth are so used to kicking us around, to treating us like shit on their shoe, that having people step aside from their kicks has appeared to mortally offend them.
 
Potent Whisper - who I guess Peck regards as part of the "hardcore"- has impressed me by his unflagging support for the Arches. He has used art to protest. The streetart, T shirts, banners and actions have been important to keep the campaign in the public eye.

The Labour party could learn something from this.

He does a lot of stuff for Lambeth residents as a whole. He's a good man.
 
Regarding security at meetings there seems no logical reason why the council chamber has been boarded up for the last year.
After all the council's "Development partners" are currently working on adjacent sites - not the Town Hall.

When the council chamber was available 5 years ago I recall when the Mayor refused to take a petition on the demolition of Lambeth College, there was a major disruption from the gallery stopping the Full Council meeting before it even started.

When the council choose to piss people off in the interests of developers and gentrification it always causes emotions to run high. The Lambeth College issue led to the Full Council meeting being suspended for an hour whilst it was agreed that the petition would be heard the following meeting.

Meanwhile despite the council's own security guards being unable to control the disgruntled students/UNISON members etc in the gallery the council chose to negotiate rather than call the Police.

What has changed now? Why do they now call the police and intimate that council meetings may in future be held IN CAMERA, or before a vetted audience?

What's changed is that post-Gipsy Hill, they're seeing that words can become action, and that the venal self-regarding fucks could be seeing their political careers go pear-shaped.
 
Was at the Cafe Max today. They have a sign up saying that they will stay open until 19th September.
Network Rail have ' kindly ' postponed the planned eviction date until September 19th As a gesture of good will !! Nothing to do with everyone having paid their rent quarter up until end of September !
Mash Brothers called it a day yesterday after 85 years !! Fuck you Network Rail & Lambeth Council ! Your a fucking disgrace !!
 
Network Rail have ' kindly ' postponed the planned eviction date until September 19th As a gesture of good will !! Nothing to do with everyone having paid their rent quarter up until end of September !
Mash Brothers called it a day yesterday after 85 years !! Fuck you Network Rail & Lambeth Council ! Your a fucking disgrace !!
Agree totally about 'Our Friends in the South' of Lambeth Labour. Beneath contempt.
 
So fucking sad:

brixton-arches-clear-out-01.jpg


brixton-arches-clear-out-07.jpg


The heart of Brixton ripped out as traders are evicted from the Brixton Arches
 
I think that is the same legislation as prevented the transfer of The Railway Hotel (wahaca) to a community group at below market value. Legal obligation to get maximum value.
The logic of what you are both quoting is that whereas it is perfectly lawful to make private developers build social housing, they cannot do it on land which was originally in public ownership.

What sort of Alice in Wonderland logic is that?
 
This is an interesting story in City AM with some possible parallels to the Arches issue:

Khan's affordable homes pledge in doubt over TfL land advice

Saw this today in the ES. So City AM also covered it - what a surprise. My comments below about ES also cover City AM- which if anything is more right wing that ES. Ultra free marketeers.

What Khan is proposing is hardly radical. Selling TFL land at below "market value" with a guarantee that 50% will be affordable.

Yet even this mild proposal of his is getting stick from the Tory cunts and clearly there property developer business friends.

It just shows how the system is set up to look after the interests of Tory scum and big business who want to make a killing out of property. The Evening Standard leader comment today on the subject of Khan and housing is a masterclass in how to appear reasonable but in actual fact is nothing of the sort. ES is there to support property developer scum. One only has to leaf through Wednesdays edition to see that.

Yes there are parallels with the arches. People voted in Khan - one major issue was housing- and he is now finding its the way the whole system is set up that’s going to thwart him.

No one wanted the arches business to go. Some of us, me included, went to lots of meetings about planning for the future Brixton. Then when it comes down to it none of that counts.

So what exactly is the point of going through the democratic channels?
 
Last edited:
The logic of what you are both quoting is that whereas it is perfectly lawful to make private developers build social housing, they cannot do it on land which was originally in public ownership.

What sort of Alice in Wonderland logic is that?

I agree. Good way to put it.
 
Back
Top Bottom