Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

If I lose this case, councils can shut women’s spaces at will

88 replies

LCommunity · 14/08/2025 17:29

I’m the founder of L Community, a women-only lesbian network. Earlier this year I applied to convert a disused council-controlled railway arch into a female-only lesbian venue. It met every legal test under Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010 – same-sex only, necessary for privacy and dignity, no mixed-sex access.

For the application, I identified specific arches that would be suitable, but made clear I would take any appropriate building if an arch was not possible. An arch is simply the lowest baseline in terms of cost and fit-out. Southwark Council still refused. They’ve given arches to LGBTQ+ groups, but in my case said they owned none – even though their own asset register lists hundreds. They also refused to carry out the Equality Impact Assessment they are legally required to do.

I’ve now exhausted their complaints process and have lawyers taking this forward. We are preparing for a judicial review of their decision, which would be the first case of its kind. If it succeeds, it will set a binding precedent forcing every local authority in the UK to apply Schedule 3 equally for women-only spaces.

Has anyone else here seen their own council refuse a lawful single-sex space? What happened, and how was it handled?

OP posts:
PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 21:11

LCommunity · 14/08/2025 21:03

The arch I applied for is a Southwark-owned freehold, not a low line leasehold. The Low Line context on the site is there because Southwark has used the 'control not own' framing across multiple arches to downplay their remit. They’ve granted leases on other arches to various organisations – the details are in the public Land Registry and lease records if you want to check.

Show quote history

I mean you can very easily provide even a single example? If they exist that is.

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 21:10

Here's what your website says happened...

"In March 2025, Southwark Council refused our lawful request to convert a disused railway arch into the UK’s first female‑only lesbian community venue. We asked for one arch – 0.25% of their vacant stock. They control hundreds, many already given to LGBTQ+ groups." (the bolding is mine)

'Control' is an odd term to use here. Why not just say they own them?

Given that elsewhere, you claim that factors that indicate a council 'controls' property includes exercising their planning powers, being involved in urban regeneration that involves certain properties, or 'writing the rules' around urban planning projects, it strikes me that 'control' means something very broad to you, which neither any reasonable person nor, I suspect, a Court, would agree with.

And given that you've refused to provide a single link proving that Southwark Council owns (or indeed controls, or leases) hundreds of arches, it makes me wonder if, in fact, your solicitor knows even if you don't that the arches are not, in fact, owned by the Council - which is a binary and objective fact that can be readily disproved.

To what extent is the repeated reference to 'controlled' carefully chosen because it is much more subjective and arguable, and because you can't solicit donations based on false information. But on a forum such as this, where you are banned from explicitly soliciting donations but plenty of others will naively 'garden' on your behalf, you need have no such limitations on any misrepresentations of the case you'll be making in court.

Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 21:03

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:49

You won't have any difficulty in giving some examples then?

Because right now, you're claiming the arch you requested is owned by Southwark Council, but your website seems to be referring only to low line arches which are owned by a private company, and talks about 'control' rather than ownership.

So what organisations have leased arches from Southwark Council?

Show quote history

The arch I applied for is a Southwark-owned freehold, not a low line leasehold. The Low Line context on the site is there because Southwark has used the 'control not own' framing across multiple arches to downplay their remit. They’ve granted leases on other arches to various organisations – the details are in the public Land Registry and lease records if you want to check.

OP posts:
Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:59

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:45

The L Community website says that the council's response was that “Southwark Council does not own or manage the railway arches in question.”.

Your rebuttal of that was:

(a) they exercised planning powers over the arches. Obviously - they are a planning authority and they exercise the same authority over almost every building in the borough.

(b) the Council is a 'core delivery partner' of the low line. Of course they are - Councils are often drivers of broad urban regeneration projects in their areas. That does not mean they exercise control over the private property that form part of those projects.

(c) The Council's regeneration plan includes statements about the Low Line project. "If they didn’t control the arches, they wouldn’t be writing the rules for them." Again - of course that's nonsense. Councils 'write the rules' for private property all the time. My house isn't owned and controlled by the Council because they write the planning guidance that applies in my borough.

(d) The Council has given money to LGBTQ+ projects. Fine. Not sure how that relates to whether or not the council owns or controls the railway arches.

Weird that none of your rebuttal on the website was 'they do actually own the arches' with accompanying proof?

Show quote history

The freehold for the arches I applied for is registered to Southwark Council in the Land Registry. That’s why their 'no control' statement doesn’t stand up. The other points on the site are just context showing how closely they’re involved.

OP posts:
Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:51

TheAutumnCrow · 14/08/2025 18:42

And link to JKR’s women’s fund. (Although maybe you are already cognisant and nuff
said.)

(But I’d like to chip in anyway.)

Show quote history

Thank you, I really appreciate that. Yes, JKR’s fund's a great initiative! Really grateful for any support people want to give here too.

OP posts:
PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:49

LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:41

Yes – they’ve leased arches and comparable units to other groups, including mixed-sex LGBTQ+ organisations. All of that is in Southwark’s own public records. You can find it in their published lease register, planning portal, and asset lists, as well as their Low Line partnership documents.

Show quote history

You won't have any difficulty in giving some examples then?

Because right now, you're claiming the arch you requested is owned by Southwark Council, but your website seems to be referring only to low line arches which are owned by a private company, and talks about 'control' rather than ownership.

So what organisations have leased arches from Southwark Council?

Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:45

GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:33

But owning the freehold doesn't mean you control the property. It just means you collect ground rent from the lessee. When you buy a leasehold property, the freeholder can't suddenly change the terms.

But in this case Southwark is both the freeholder and the planning authority, and the arches sit within a regeneration project they oversee. That means they’re not just collecting rent, they’re also actively deciding how those spaces are used through their own asset strategy and planning control.

OP posts:
PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:45

LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:32

The arches I applied for are freehold-owned by Southwark – that’s not 'controlled' in the vague sense you’re implying, it’s legal ownership. The 'controlled' language in my materials was referring to the wider set of arches linked to their Low Line and regeneration strategy, where they hold planning powers, lease arrangements, and strategic oversight even when a third party has a leasehold. In this case, the ones at issue are owned outright by the council and vacant.

For context, I’m a qualified public sector town planner. I’ve worked with council-owned and leased assets for years, so the distinctions I’m making here aren’t guesswork.

Show quote history

The L Community website says that the council's response was that “Southwark Council does not own or manage the railway arches in question.”.

Your rebuttal of that was:

(a) they exercised planning powers over the arches. Obviously - they are a planning authority and they exercise the same authority over almost every building in the borough.

(b) the Council is a 'core delivery partner' of the low line. Of course they are - Councils are often drivers of broad urban regeneration projects in their areas. That does not mean they exercise control over the private property that form part of those projects.

(c) The Council's regeneration plan includes statements about the Low Line project. "If they didn’t control the arches, they wouldn’t be writing the rules for them." Again - of course that's nonsense. Councils 'write the rules' for private property all the time. My house isn't owned and controlled by the Council because they write the planning guidance that applies in my borough.

(d) The Council has given money to LGBTQ+ projects. Fine. Not sure how that relates to whether or not the council owns or controls the railway arches.

Weird that none of your rebuttal on the website was 'they do actually own the arches' with accompanying proof?

Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:44

GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:39

I’ve worked with council-owned and leased assets for years

I'm choosing to revert to my state of ignorance 😆 The workings of local authorities are so convoluted, I'd have to be motivated to the point of obsession to get to grips with them.

Yeah, I get why it’s confusing – council asset records are a bit of a maze. I’m used to working with them daily in my job, so I know where to find and interpret the information. In Southwark’s case, the leases and ownership records are in their public register and planning files.

OP posts:
Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:41

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:35

At the heart of your case is a claim that you are being treated less favorably by the Council by virtue of protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

So presumably you can show us the other organisations that have been given railway arches by the Council?

Yes – they’ve leased arches and comparable units to other groups, including mixed-sex LGBTQ+ organisations. All of that is in Southwark’s own public records. You can find it in their published lease register, planning portal, and asset lists, as well as their Low Line partnership documents.

OP posts:
Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:40

IrnBruAndDietCoke · 14/08/2025 20:32

Wow Google and X are very eye opening.
Can only echo PPs that people must always do due diligence before giving money.

There's a lot of noise on Twitter. Unfortunately, when you’re visible and actually doing things on the ground, some people who are more focused on online performance feel threatened. That dynamic can spill over into smear campaigns, and it’s ramped up since I launched my legal case against Southwark. I’m not going to get into personalities, but the claims being repeated are false and already under formal review. The Charity Commission has already opened a case and engaged in cross-referencing with other bodies. I can’t comment further until their process is complete, but the complaint is fully evidenced and under formal review.

OP posts:
GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:39

I’ve worked with council-owned and leased assets for years

I'm choosing to revert to my state of ignorance 😆 The workings of local authorities are so convoluted, I'd have to be motivated to the point of obsession to get to grips with them.

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:35

At the heart of your case is a claim that you are being treated less favorably by the Council by virtue of protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

So presumably you can show us the other organisations that have been given railway arches by the Council?

GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:33

But owning the freehold doesn't mean you control the property. It just means you collect ground rent from the lessee. When you buy a leasehold property, the freeholder can't suddenly change the terms.

Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:32

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:28

Controlled is the word used by L Community.

I suspect because the claim that the council owns hundreds of arches is well wide of the mark, which is why instead they seem to be claiming that arches owned by a private company are 'controlled' by the council.

Show quote history

The arches I applied for are freehold-owned by Southwark – that’s not 'controlled' in the vague sense you’re implying, it’s legal ownership. The 'controlled' language in my materials was referring to the wider set of arches linked to their Low Line and regeneration strategy, where they hold planning powers, lease arrangements, and strategic oversight even when a third party has a leasehold. In this case, the ones at issue are owned outright by the council and vacant.

For context, I’m a qualified public sector town planner. I’ve worked with council-owned and leased assets for years, so the distinctions I’m making here aren’t guesswork.

OP posts:
IrnBruAndDietCoke · 14/08/2025 20:32

Wow Google and X are very eye opening.
Can only echo PPs that people must always do due diligence before giving money.

Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:29

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:27

Source for your claim that they own hundreds?

You're not referring to the Low Line are you?

Show quote history

You can check it in Southwark’s published property asset lists on their website, and by cross-referencing with HM Land Registry (search 'London Borough of Southwark' as proprietor). When you add up the railway arch freeholds along their portfolio, it’s far more than the nine they quote in that dataset.

OP posts:
GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:29

Ah - so the register lists only assets that are 'financial' rather than 'for communal benefit' or something similar? Cheers.

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:28

GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:11

According to Southwark's published data, it owns nine railway arches. I don't know what 'controlled' means here.

Show quote history

Controlled is the word used by L Community.

I suspect because the claim that the council owns hundreds of arches is well wide of the mark, which is why instead they seem to be claiming that arches owned by a private company are 'controlled' by the council.

Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:27

PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:02

For some reason the embedded link didn’t show. This is what is was referring to:

https://thelcommunity.com/southwark-council-claimed-they-dont-control-the-arches/

So are you asking for property owned by the council or just property that you think per the link is ‘controlled’ by the council?

Show quote history

It’s the same thing in this case – the arches I applied for are owned by Southwark. The link I mentioned isn’t live at the moment as we’re updating it with new case details, but it’s based entirely on their own planning documents. They’ve tried to present the arches as merely 'controlled' rather than 'owned' to make it sound like they’re outside their remit. In reality, the freehold is in their name, so they have both ownership and control.

OP posts:
PlanetJanette · 14/08/2025 20:27

LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:16

Southwark’s public asset register only lists nine arches, but they own hundreds. The one I applied for is among them.

Show quote history

Source for your claim that they own hundreds?

You're not referring to the Low Line are you?

Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:22

GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:18

So the council owns them but they aren't property assets? How does that work? (This isn't a trap: I've never checked a council's assets before and don't understand how they can own property that don't own!)

They do own them, it’s just a quirk of how Southwark records its assets. The railway arches are classed as community or operational assets rather than investment property, so the freehold’s still in Southwark’s name but they’re held for a service or community purpose instead of as income-generating investments. That’s why they don’t show up on the investment property list – it’s more of an accounting category thing than anything else.

OP posts:
MurkyWeather · 14/08/2025 20:19

GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:10

I've just found a Twitter thread containing a co-ordinated smear by women whose work I admire.

I don't know Aja, Jo Bartosch, Sall Grover or Dr Em personally. I understand that activism in a politically risky area makes people cautious. But if you believe they're victimising you, Jenny, have you explained somewhere why this might be so?

Show quote history

These are indeed admirable GC women whose opinion I very much respect.

Original poster
LCommunity · 14/08/2025 20:18

EnjoythemoneyJane · 14/08/2025 20:11

Wishing you all the best, Jenny. Absolutely insane to think this is where we are with a council like Southwark, that would have been falling over its own fucking feet not that long ago to make space available for lesbian groups. Bit of a sidebar (sorry!), how did the picnic go? Did you manage to meet up without harassment?

Thank you – it is insane, isn’t it. The picnic went well, no harassment this time thankfully, just a good group of women turning up for each other. We had such a good turnout we’ve now made Saturday mingles a weekly thing, it all started with those picnics!

OP posts:
GarlicLitre · 14/08/2025 20:18

So the council owns them but they aren't property assets? How does that work? (This isn't a trap: I've never checked a council's assets before and don't understand how they can own property that don't own!)