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

[LCommunity]

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?

Absolutely – and for transparency, all funds on my case go directly into my solicitor’s client account for legal action. I receive no personal benefit.

Yes, that would be gardening 'due diligence' too

It worked for me titchy - just Google searched by name and the CJ site was maybe the third on the list

There’s been a coordinated smear on social media tied to a safeguarding complaint I made. The Charity Commission opened a case in one working day – fewer than 1% of complaints get through that quickly and are already requesting information that crosses into matters handled by other agencies.

This was not a step I wanted to take. After my medical data was leaked online by the charity’s press officer – and they refused to remove it or condemn it – I had no choice, particularly with the Southwark case imminent.

The essentials are on file with the Commission and supported by evidence. I’m happy to outline the broad context if it helps put minds at rest.

There’s been a coordinated smear on social media

Are you saying LGB Alliance is smearing you?

Most definitely. Searching for background is vital.

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?

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?

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?

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

This thread is about Southwark Council’s refusal to provide a lawful single-sex space. I’m not going to be drawn into side issues that distract from that. The facts of the Southwark case are public and backed by legal documents.

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

If a thread is asking for financial support, readers need information to decide how much to contribute.

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!)

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!

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

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.

Source for your claim that they own hundreds?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.