Petition in favour of Brighton Terrace Drug Treatment centre

[Kiddo-Whizz]

The idea of planning permission for the whole project being "temporary" or "reviewable" is an interesting one. My guess is that this would result in the proposal being withdrawn since the capital investment required to get it off the ground will be far too large to risk if the plug can then be pulled after two or three years. The centre would have to be 100% certain that they could deliver against any criteria for renewal of the permission and I doubt that anyone is quite THAT confident that the centre will not bring an element of trouble.

The idea of a warden does not fill me with confidence, largely because of the pictures the word conjures up for me. I would need to be convinced that it has been properly thought through rather than just some afterthought from a planning consultant - "hey, I know, we'll chuck in a warden - that'll keep 'em happy". In order to be effective he (or she) could not just be some retired parking attendant but would need a huge range of skills and specialist training. If such a warden could be conceived and a clear outline of their remit produced then it could help a geat deal.

I can see why the size of the centre is important but that only makes me feel more strongly that they should be trying very hard to find a better, less risky site. This project is afterall a pioneering experiment and if it does fuck up, whether because it exacerbates problems for residents or because placing it in the centre of the biggest (I'm guessing) drug market in Britain makes it less effective, it will not help other much needed centres get the go ahead.

The idea of a warden patrolling the area is not an 'afterthought' thrown in to appease the residents. On the contrary, I understand the warden will be an established outreach worker from the Lambeth Crime Prevention Team, who incidentally already works closely with the local police in the Brixton area. This outreach worker is very much part of the drug initiative to reduce the presence of persisten drug users hanging around the tube and surrounding areas. The suggestion that SLaM and the police made the proposal lightly is misplaced and rather cynical. This proposal was made very clear by the Police representative at the planning meeting in September. It seems that lack of knowledge of this proposal is simply an indication that most people in the anti camp were not listening or perhaps faled to ask more details of what was proposed. There are hundreds of drug services strewn across the country, some much larger than the one proposed, which are based in the heart of residential areas. I cannot of a single one that has experienced, or created the problems envisaged by most in the anti-camp faction.

Call me cynical, but I believe the problem with this proposal being so vociferously opposed is the fact that some residents (not all) in the Brighton Terrace area ARE indeed professional with powerful links within the council and the Labour Party, hence the Labour Councillor's opposition to the centre. It's the same old story of a few privileged individual with strong political connections lobbying their representative. Nothing will make me change my mind on this one. Most people have agreed that Brixton NEEDS a drug centre. I am not so naive as to claim that there will be no problems at all, but overall I strongly believe that the proposed drug centre will bring more benefits to the area than problems. The residents have eloquently argued that they have already a significant problem in their area with discarded needles and drug users roaming the area. I simply cannot see how a drug centre located in such a blighted area could make things worse. On the contrary, I believe that the drug centre will displace the problem somewhere else and bring much relief and benefits to the local residents.

As was pointed out in a posting somewhere above, 90% of drug users are to all effect 'invisible' to the general population simply because not every drug user is a chaotic user rampaging through the streets. This is a long term problem of wrong perception of drug users, who are invariably described in 'hysterical' tones as out of control criminals. Let's get a grip on reality. This country used to be a tolerant and pragmatic country, it seems that the media and successive governments have succeeded in wrongly demonising this vulnerable group of people. Let's not forget that the reason our community is so divided and at each other's throat is a direct result of the unenlighted policies of our politicians, who have created the 'problem' in the first place by sticking to the American style prohibitionism that has created the largest criminal wave in history. Do we really want to continue to wage of war on people because that's exactly what the 'war on drugs' is really all about. Drug users are the convenient punch bag of our society who can conveniently be blamed for all the ills of our inner cities. Do we really want to create teh same situation that Americans have created in their society? Can we start again to be British rather than a colony of America blindly adopting policiies that are clearly not working as well illustrated by the enormous problems that our American cousins are experiencing.

 

[Ol Nick]

The idea of planning permission for the whole project being "temporary" or "reviewable" is an interesting one. My guess is that this would result in the proposal being withdrawn since the capital investment required to get it off the ground will be far too large to risk if the plug can then be pulled after two or three years.

This question was put to the architect at the planning meeting. He stated that the resulting building would be suitable for normal office use with very little conversion work and that temporary planning permission might not pose too much of a financial risk.

The "warden" BTW, was an "afterthought" in that it did form part of the original proposals. But you could equally say that the idea was thought up "as a result of consultation with local people" so not much propaganda value there.

The idea of testing the effectiveness of a treament centre next the drugs market of central Brixton by starting with a smaller centre and dropping the drop-in needle exchange idea is the best one so far. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets past most of the residents too.

 

[Blagsta]

But there already are treatment centres and needle exchanges in Brixton.

 

[Ol Nick]

But there already are treatment centres and needle exchanges in Brixton.

They must be different. SLAM were clear about only running centres in Stockwell and at Marina House (in fact in Southwark).

There are outreach schemes that you see from time to time. There's often one I see in Tunstall Road. It certainly hasn't done anything to turn Tunstall Road into anything less of a crack-smoking, neede-littered, piss-smelly alley.

 

[Blagsta]

"They must be different". What you mean is, that you don't know. In what way are they different? What are they doing that this new propsed centre won't?

 

[Ol Nick]

"They must be different". What you mean is, that you don't know. In what way are they different? What are they doing that this new propsed centre won't?

It'd be great if the people planning this new centre would say why they are different to, for instance, the outdoors scheme in Tunstall Road which does nothing to reduce the anti-social behaviour from chaotic drug users in the local area.

But they don't. They make assertions. Objectors voice scepticism. The proposers make the assertions again. It's not an argument, it's just contradiction.

 

[Blagsta]

You're arguing from a position of ignorance. Maybe if you educated yourself a little about drug treatment and services that already exist in Brixton, people might take you a little more seriously.

 

[Rushy]

You're arguing from a position of ignorance. Maybe if you educated yourself a little about drug treatment and services that already exist in Brixton, people might take you a little more seriously.

I'd agree that the vast majority of people are arguing from a position of at least partial ignorance. We're not all trained healthcare professionals and many people only really know what they see around them. But the proposers cannot expect to say to the residents "Hi - we're proposing to put a new drug treatment centre next door to your home. We know drugs and drug users are a sensitive issue for you so if you would each kindly go away and educate yourself in drug rehabilitation you'll realise just what a great opportunity this is for you."

Whatever the planning application, it is surely the proposers job to understand the fears of the local residents - however ill-founded they may judge them to be - and then provide relevant information in an easily accessible format that will help to "educate" them. They do not appear to be doing this very well and are giving the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that they don't really give a monkey's about the locals.

 

[Rushy]

"They must be different". What you mean is, that you don't know. In what way are they different? What are they doing that this new propsed centre won't?

Surely it is fair to assume these projects (which I admit I am also not particularly familiar with) are fairly different becasue the proposers of the new centre are arguing that theirs is a much needed service that does not already exist.

If the proposed new service is in fact not wildly different to what is already available in Brixton, then I would think that may be a good reason why many residents fear the project being located on Brighton Terrace. It is not as if their successes are overwhelmingly obvious to the average 'man/woman in the street' that most of us are.

 

[Blagsta]

I'd agree that the vast majority of people are arguing from a position of at least partial ignorance. We're not all trained healthcare professionals and many people only really know what they see around them. But the proposers cannot expect to say to the residents "Hi - we're proposing to put a new drug treatment centre next door to your home. We know drugs and drug users are a sensitive issue for you so if you would each kindly go away and educate yourself in drug rehabilitation you'll realise just what a great opportunity this is for you."

Whatever the planning application, it is surely the proposers job to understand the fears of the local residents - however ill-founded they may judge them to be - and then provide relevant information in an easily accessible format that will help to "educate" them. They do not appear to be doing this very well and are giving the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that they don't really give a monkey's about the locals.

If you're arguing against something, it might be an idea to educate yourself with the facts first, no?

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

I'd agree that the vast majority of people are arguing from a position of at least partial ignorance. We're not all trained healthcare professionals and many people only really know what they see around them. But the proposers cannot expect to say to the residents "Hi - we're proposing to put a new drug treatment centre next door to your home. We know drugs and drug users are a sensitive issue for you so if you would each kindly go away and educate yourself in drug rehabilitation you'll realise just what a great opportunity this is for you."

Whatever the planning application, it is surely the proposers job to understand the fears of the local residents - however ill-founded they may judge them to be - and then provide relevant information in an easily accessible format that will help to "educate" them. They do not appear to be doing this very well and are giving the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that they don't really give a monkey's about the locals.

But how can you educate people when they hang for dear life to all their worst prejudices? SLaM can 'educate' people till they are blue faced, it simply will not succeed. Placing the centre observing the due course of the planning officer, who did not object to the centre, is the only way to educate people. Once they realise and see with their own eyes that the centre will not materialise all their worst nightmare, then they will be educated.

 

[Rushy]

But how can you educate people when they hang for dear life to all their worst prejudices? SLaM can 'educate' people till they are blue faced, it simply will not succeed. Placing the centre observing the due course of the planning officer, who did not object to the centre, is the only way to educate people. Once they realise and see with their own eyes that the centre will not materialise all their worst nightmare, then they will be educated.

A couple of posts ago you appeared to express a fairly strong prejudice yourself against some of the residents of Brighton Terrace followed by the statement "My mind will not be changed on this one." Unfortunately when both sides hang on for dear life to their prejudices you inevitably end up with stalemate.

Unless it is accepted that not everyone protesting against the centre is as prejudice (and as powerful) as you suggest and that there are normal people like you and me who have genuine concerns about the potential for an increase in drug related activity and crime on their doorsteps then no solution can be reached. These fears have to be addressed.

Surely the only way forward can be compromise and understanding from both sides.

It occurs to me that, if what Ol' Nick says regarding the feasibility of converting the building back to office space is correct, this must also be true in reverse. If that is so - would it be possible for SLaM to purchase the whole building with planning granted for a smaller centre on the ground floor and non-related offices on the upper floors which could be leased out? SLaM could then proceed with the project and take the opportunity to show that they are able to help address the local problem before they opens their doors to become an Lambeth-wide centre. If it can be shown that it has benefitted the immediate local area as well as the clients the centre is serving then I'm sure there would be litle protest against them getting change of use to use the upper parts (and if there was protest it would be hard to substantiate). If not, SLaM can choose to continue to operate a smaller service and receive an income from the upper floors or look for another site.

All that said, my own opinion is currently that there could well be more appropriate locations very nearby (if indeed locating slap bang in the middle of Brixton is the right choice which, as you know, I can't help but doubt). Does anyone know whether SLaM has carried out a feasibility study on any other central locations?

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

A couple of posts ago you appeared to express a fairly strong prejudice yourself against some of the residents of Brighton Terrace followed by the statement "My mind will not be changed on this one." Unfortunately when both sides hang on for dear life to their prejudices you inevitably end up with stalemate.

Unless it is accepted that not everyone protesting against the centre is as prejudice (and as powerful) as you suggest and that there are normal people like you and me who have genuine concerns about the potential for an increase in drug related activity and crime on their doorsteps then no solution can be reached. These fears have to be addressed.

Surely the only way forward can be compromise and understanding from both sides.

It occurs to me that, if what Ol' Nick says regarding the feasibility of converting the building back to office space is correct, this must also be true in reverse. If that is so - would it be possible for SLaM to purchase the whole building with planning granted for a smaller centre on the ground floor and non-related offices on the upper floors which could be leased out? SLaM could then proceed with the project and take the opportunity to show that they are able to help address the local problem before they opens their doors to become an Lambeth-wide centre. If it can be shown that it has benefitted the immediate local area as well as the clients the centre is serving then I'm sure there would be litle protest against them getting change of use to use the upper parts (and if there was protest it would be hard to substantiate). If not, SLaM can choose to continue to operate a smaller service and receive an income from the upper floors or look for another site.

All that said, my own opinion is currently that there could well be more appropriate locations very nearby (if indeed locating slap bang in the middle of Brixton is the right choice which, as you know, I can't help but doubt). Does anyone know whether SLaM has carried out a feasibility study on any other central locations?

Though I agree with you that a compromise would be acceptable, I still do not agree that the centre should be located somewhere else. The whole point for the centre being located in central Brixton is the easy accessibility that such a centre should have for ALL Lambeth residents who may need this type of service. My prejudice stems from my perception of the arguments of the residents as being hypocritical in the extreme. They are also doing a disservice to themselves. In my humble opinion if the centre is forced on another location, they will just continue to experience the same problems they are experiencing now. It all comes down to short-sightedness and prejudice. Do the residents REALLY want an end to the blight of discarded needles in their streets? The answer and help is at hand.

 

[Rushy]

Though I agree with you that a compromise would be acceptable, I still do not agree that the centre should be located somewhere else. The whole point for the centre being located in central Brixton is the easy accessibility that such a centre should have for ALL Lambeth residents who may need this type of service. My prejudice stems from my perception of the arguments of the residents as being hypocritical in the extreme. They are also doing a disservice to themselves. In my humble opinion if the centre is forced on another location, they will just continue to experience the same problems they are experiencing now. It all comes down to short-sightedness and prejudice. Do the residents REALLY want an end to the blight of discarded needles in their streets? The answer and help is at hand.

It seems that your prejudices are based on the same thing as everyone elses - perceptions made on what we observe around us and which are then influenced by our own limited knowledge and life experiences.

OK - assuming that the argument that it needs to be in central Brixton is correct and that no other area with excellent transport links would suffice and that multiple smaller centres would not make the service more accessible - why is Brighton Terrace the ideal location? Why not Colharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction. I am sure it would help people to know why this very precise and clearly contentious location is so crucial and what other properties had been considered.

More importantly though, if, as Blagsta says, there are already needle exchanges / treatment centres in Brixton how is this one, which is designed to attract additional non-local users (albeit people who are trying to deal with their addiction), going to improve the problem where the others have not visibly done so. That seems to me to be a valid question?

As far as the exchange itself is concerned, I can see the benefits for the user but I don't entirely understand how having an exchange will necessarily solve the 'needles on doorsteps' problem (to which I would add faeces on doorsteps problem in my own experience). My understanding is that the centres do not allow injecting on site so needles will need to be taken away for use elsewhere. The principle of an exchange is as I understand it that the user will need to produce a used sharp to qualify for a fresh one. If they don't produce one, where do they get their sharps from? My garden is constantly being littered with both used and unused needles so they are clearly readily available without exchange.

So where's the incentive to exchange?
What happens when the user can't produce a needle to 'exchange' -are they excluded from the system and what happens to them then?
Even if users don't leave the needles lying about, they still need somewhere to shoot up and why will they stop using the same doorsteps, front gardens and alleys..?
If they still need to use doorsteps etc.. why will they not be more likley to use the steps and gardens closest to the centre?
And if the centre is attracting users from a larger catchment area, why would that behaviour not be expected to increase?

(Sorry for so many questions!)

 

[Ms T]

OK - assuming that the argument that it needs to be in central Brixton is correct and that no other area with excellent transport links would suffice and that multiple smaller centres would not make the service more accessible - why is Brighton Terrace the ideal location? Why not Colharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction. I am sure it would help people to know why this very precise and clearly contentious location is so crucial and what other properties had been considered.

I think this is a very valid question. Brixton Cycles in particular would seem to be an excellent location for this kind of centre, as it is a stone's throw from the new police station on Coldharbour Lane.

 

[IntoStella]

Why not Colharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction.

Why not Brighton Terrace? As I have said before, I would be happy to have such a place close by -- and I know a lot of my neighbours would agree -- BUT the site on Brighton Terrace has been chosen as the most suitable in the area for development. Why not just accept it? I am not seeing a single convincing argument or shred of evidence that this is anything other than nimbyism on the part of Brighton Terrace residents.

 

[Bob]

I think this is a very valid question. Brixton Cycles in particular would seem to be an excellent location for this kind of centre, as it is a stone's throw from the new police station on Coldharbour Lane.

I'd think the main reason is that the council doesn't own it - it's privately owned. So they could only buy it by offering the owner enough cash to give it up - probably a million or two.

 

[IntoStella]

I'd think the main reason is that the council doesn't own it

Indeed.

 

[Blagsta]

More importantly though, if, as Blagsta says, there are already needle exchanges / treatment centres in Brixton how is this one, which is designed to attract additional non-local users (albeit people who are trying to deal with their addiction), going to improve the problem where the others have not visibly done so. That seems to me to be a valid question?

Errr...it is rather a large assumption on your part that the current services have done nothing to improve the situation. On what do you base this?

 

[Rushy]

I'd think the main reason is that the council doesn't own it - it's privately owned. So they could only buy it by offering the owner enough cash to give it up - probably a million or two.

Unless I am mistaken the council does own Acre House on Acre Lane (ironically, planning have just moved out) and Lambeth definitely owned the other property on Effra Road I referred to.

 

[IntoStella]

Unless I am mistaken the council does own Acre House on Acre Lane (ironically, planning have just moved out) and Lambeth definitely owned the other property on Effra Road I referred to.

But why are they better sites than Brighton Terrace? And from whose point of view?

 

[Rushy]

Errr...it is rather a large assumption on your part that the current services have done nothing to improve the situation. On what do you base this?

I haven't assumed that they had done nothing to improve the situation - I said they had not *visibly* done so. My own observation over the past eight years (five of them living on Tunstall Road) is that the problem of drug related litter and faeces has increased - it is much worse than it was in 97/98. And that which is visible is what most people will be basing their objections on - and what else do you expect people to do? If there is a good reason why that should be considered an improvement no-one is really communicating it very well.

Admittedly, my own ignorance about the Central Brixton help groups/exchanges you referred to earlier does not help. Could you let me know some details so that I can find out more for myself? Cheers.

 

[Rushy]

Why not Brighton Terrace? As I have said before, I would be happy to have such a place close by -- and I know a lot of my neighbours would agree -- BUT the site on Brighton Terrace has been chosen as the most suitable in the area for development. Why not just accept it? I am not seeing a single convincing argument or shred of evidence that this is anything other than nimbyism on the part of Brighton Terrace residents.

You feel happy with the siting of the centre and so, you say, are many of your neighbours. And that has to be respected. But many aren't happy and "it has been chosen - accept it" can't really be expected to win anyone over.

That's why in the post to which you responded I asked:

"Why is Brighton Terrace the ideal location? Why not Coldharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction. I am sure it would help people to know why this very precise and clearly contentious location is so crucial and what other properties had been considered."

"It has been chosen - accept it" wouldn't be an acceptable response if the proposal was a club, or a supermarket or a telecoms mast - so why is it acceptable for a drug clinic?

 

[Blagsta]

I haven't assumed that they had done nothing to improve the situation - I said they had not *visibly* done so. My own observation over the past eight years (five of them living on Tunstall Road) is that the problem of drug related litter and faeces has increased - it is much worse than it was in 97/98. And that which is visible is what most people will be basing their objections on - and what else do you expect people to do? If there is a good reason why that should be considered an improvement no-one is really communicating it very well.

Again, that is so loaded with assumptions based on little evidence.

Admittedly, my own ignorance about the Central Brixton help groups/exchanges you referred to earlier does not help. Could you let me know some details so that I can find out more for myself? Cheers.

www.drugscope.or.uk
www.nta.nhs.uk

are good places to start if you want to educate yourself about drug treatment

 

[IntoStella]

You feel happy with the siting of the centre and so, you say, are many of your neighbours. And that has to be respected. But many aren't happy and "it has been chosen - accept it" can't really be expected to win anyone over.

That's why in the post to which you responded I asked:

"Why is Brighton Terrace the ideal location? Why not Coldharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction. I am sure it would help people to know why this very precise and clearly contentious location is so crucial and what other properties had been considered."

"It has been chosen - accept it" wouldn't be an acceptable response if the proposal was a club, or a supermarket or a telecoms mast - so why is it acceptable for a drug clinic?

Oh come on, enough with going round and round in circles. I still can't see anything but nimbyism in your argument.

 

[Orang Utan]

I think families worried about needles in playgrounds aren't necessarily nimbys

 

[netbob]

I think families worried about needles in playgrounds aren't necessarily nimbys

Probably not as that's a valid concern. But without effective needle exchange facilities needles in playgrounds (and elsewhere) are probably more likely aren't they?

 

[IntoStella]

I think families worried about needles in playgrounds aren't necessarily nimbys

There are children living everywhere in Brixton. This kind of Rebekkkah Wade style emoting (and emotional bullying) by numbers does not help anyone

 

[Orang Utan]

So parents worried about their kids are guilty of emoting by numbers and emotional bullying?
What doesn't help is demonising people who disagree with you. As I said before.

 

[IntoStella]

So parents worried about their kids are guilty of emoting by numbers and emotional bullying?
What doesn't help is demonising people who disagree with you. As I said before.

They didn't say it. You did. Their self appointed young, professional, childless spokesman.