Introductions by Eileen Conn (Peckham Vision) and John Wilson (owner of Copeland Park). Amongst other things, John Wilson states that housing isn’t necessarily his or his families “agenda” - as well as needing somewhere to live (and acknowledges the priority of housing in the capital) people also need somewhere to “rest and play”. This echoes my meeting with Tim Wilson earlier in the day - the importance of Peckham developing a day-time work economy to complement the flourishing night-time economy.
John Wilson also states that the development of site (Copeland Park) has been a “slow process” - this reflects their ambition, similar to Eileen, to allow the site to develop “organically”. This process he believes “seems to be working” and it’s difficult to disagree - its popularity has increased exponentially whilst maintaining its character and integrity (although these elements are arguably under threat).
However before the proceedings were able to continue along the planned trajectory, a woman comes to the front of the audience and commandeers the microphone.
“Peckham needs a black space! When I look around me, this isn’t the Peckham I used to know.” Her anger is palpable, and rising every second. She shouts at the audience, challenging the white supremacy she sees all around her, and when she claims reparations still need to be paid for slavery there is a shout of “Oh no come on!” from the back of the room. Tensions rise, and Eileen moves in to grapple with the mic.
“Don’t touch me!” says the woman, defending herself against Eileen, who manages to somehow wrestle the mic from her, saying that they will forgot the way things were meant to proceed and open the floor immediately for questions. Although this intrusion by the woman disrupted events, the tone had been set, and the following two hour discussion rarely fell below this level of passion and energy.
[Upon rereading it's important to state that Eileen retrieving the mic from the woman was not a forceful act. It was rather a reminder that other people were also meant to have time with the microphone, and any physical contact was, as Eileen said afterwards, an instinctive gentle touch on the arm when you're close to someone who is distressed].
[Upon rereading it's important to state that Eileen retrieving the mic from the woman was not a forceful act. It was rather a reminder that other people were also meant to have time with the microphone, and any physical contact was, as Eileen said afterwards, an instinctive gentle touch on the arm when you're close to someone who is distressed].
Many others raised concerns about who would be benefitting from the areas regeneration. These voices were often levelled directly at Neil Kirby, the head of regeneration in Southwark, who was standing at the front. Finally, one man comes to the mic and charismatically makes the point that the council cannot be seen to represent the interests of the people: “don’t be fooled, they are the enemy! [indicating Kirby]”. He quotes the example of the latest development at Elephant and Castle, where (he claims) people from Southwark Council left and began working with the developers, thus directly benefitting from the profit made. This mans speech directly attacked the Babylon system that proliferates itself in our nations capital (using everything but those words), and you couldn’t help but agree.
Immediately following this man, another woman came to the mic, who it would later transpire had begun the Reclaim Brixton movement. She began by saying her approach was more “sophisticated” and that she disagreed with the “Us and Them” narrative of the previous speaker, favouring instead attempts made to “bridge the asymmetrical relationship” that sadly exists between the poorer, often black communities in areas like Brixton and Peckham and the council, who many believe do not reflect their interests. Her message was about getting people involved, and this admirable aim of inter-communication among different micro-communities within their larger community environment arguably drove a lot of the following discussion.
At one point the woman who had interrupted the meeting at first (Jacky), once again began shouting and laying the claim for the necessity of a “black space”, because “you [indicating Eileen] know that black people won’t come here”. Eileen responds by asking why Jacky thinks this the case. A young black man from the audience shouts out that it’s not necessarily Eileen’s responsibility to establish a black space for discussion, and that the responsibility for this lies with the black community themselves (or, in this case, Jacky, as she’s the one complaining that there isn’t one). Eileen later continues by saying she’s aware of the “self-segregation” that we are all guilty of, and the overall message is of positivity as many others express the need to build dialogue between different communities (for example Peckham Vision and local TRAs).
The meeting took place in the Bussey Building, a building which used to be home to numerous black majority pentecostal churches, and which now is home to only one. This depletion reflects the loss of pentecostal churches in the Copeland Park industrial estate more generally, as the number has decreased from around 15 to only four. As far as I am aware, no one from these churches attended this meeting, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were not even aware it was taking place. These churches are a key component in my anthropology research project, attempting to conduct research informed by the anthropology of space and place in Copeland Park. Having spoke to a group of young girls in one of the pentecostal churches, I wanted to invite them to the meeting, but the day I went to give them some flyers the church was unfortunately closed.
I’m exploring the different ways in which the Copeland Park estate is experienced by its multiple occupants, and the churches are central to this as their experience is arguably very different to, say, the artistic community or participants in the night-time economy. The young girls I spoke to said that on the whole they liked what had happened to the site, as they acknowledged that there is more “energy” now, however they also expressed a desire for more respect and awareness, citing cases of people wandering in to the church during a service with beers in their hands and being annoyingly inquisitive. This view of the other inhabitants being “annoying” was reflected by the female pastor of the largest church on site, which incidentally belongs to the second largest denomination of Christianity in the world, when she says they had physically had to move people out the way just to get to the church door.
My research is ongoing, and this has just been a taster. However, following the emphasis placed on the importance of inter-community dialogue at the public meeting hosted by Peckham Vision, and the anger at the numerous “asymmetrical relationships” which continue to operate in Peckham and London more broadly, and which often go unchallenged, I hope that my modest research into this particular space and the different communities which operate side-by-side on a daily basis will shed some light on how this situation has come into being.
What can we do to make sure the community is not destroyed and money doesn't triumph. It does feel like now is the time for action, while there is still time. But what action, and how? Peckham has shown, and hopefully will continue to show, that it can be at the forefront of resistance to these processes.
