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?

I get why it’s confusing. The difference between freehold ownership, leasehold and planning control isn’t straightforward. I’m a town planner, so I’ve worked with this kind of thing for years. In this case, Southwark isn’t just the freeholder collecting rent — they also have planning control, regeneration oversight and the final say on what the arches can be used for. That’s why they could choose to allocate one for a lawful community use.

We’ve also said from the start that if an arch wasn’t possible, we’d take any suitable council-owned venue that meets the safeguarding requirement. Single-sex, with running water and electricity – that’s it. We’ll pay rent and service charges, we’re not expecting a free gift. We’ve formally asked for alternatives, but none have been offered.

Their stage 2 response made clear the refusal wasn’t about a lack of space – it was political, based on the fact the venue would be female-only.

The word “control” isn’t my invention – it’s the term Southwark themselves use in regeneration, planning and asset-management documents when describing their role in allocating arches. In this case, they hold the freehold and the decision-making power on who occupies the space. That’s control in the plain-English and legal sense.

Whether they own 9 or 900 isn’t the issue – the Equality Act applies when a public body has the power to allocate space and chooses to refuse on a protected characteristic. Their own stage 2 response confirmed the refusal was political, based on the space being female-only. That’s the heart of the case.

A legal firm would not have agreed to connect their client account to our CrowdJustice page if the case wasn’t solid. All funds go directly into their account. They have a professional duty to assess the merits before taking it on that way.

The legal process will address it in full.

@LCommunity A legal firm would not have agreed to connect their client account to our CrowdJustice page if the case wasn’t solid.

Why ae you not naming the legal firm, Jenny? Surely potential funders have a right to know which firm their money would be going to, in order to assess the chance of success?

Donated.

I attach this post from Twitter which was @-ed to me this morning. Others are obviously invited to do their own due diligence.

This planning control is a total red herring.

Councils have planning control over almost all buildings in their areas. My local council has 'planning control' over my house and the same is true for every poster (based in England) here. That role is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the council can make a space available.

Yes, planning can be a relevant consideration if, for example, in addition to needing the physical space you also need a change of use. But even there the council can't just ignore planning law or planning policy for its own properties (again, taking your claim about the council 'owning' hundreds of arches, which simply does not appear to be true from any publicly available sources, at face value). So whether or not the Council could give you a venue is entirely separate to the fact that it is the planning authority.

Similarly, again, coordination of regeneration plans, or adopting urban space strategies is also irrelevant here. Again, it doesn't matter for ownership purposes (lots of space that is part of regeneration plans are privately owned - the council's role is around the wider regeneration plans, mix of building use etc - nothing to do with handing out venues).

But whether it is 9 or 900 is relevant for the credibility of your arguments. If you think the council owns hundreds of arches, contrary to all publicly available evidence, it suggests your understanding of the legal position of these venues is seriously lacking. If you accept that they only own about 9, as set out in their property asset register, then that would be a different matter. So it is absolutely relevant.

Also, a legal firm would take on a case provided it had even a slim chance of success. The fact that you've managed to get a legal firm to take on a case, even one where donations go directly to them, does not tell us anything about the merits of your case beyond the fact that it is arguable. But almost any case can be made arguable.

Also, it tells us nothing about the actual tangible outcome.

For example, even if your legal firm think you have a good chance of winning, that win could be entirely based on process rather than substance. For example, I don't think it's impossible that the Council might lose if it genuinely didn't actively comply with s149 of the Equality Act. But if they lose, all that will happen is that the decision to say no is quashed, and the Council must make the decision afresh.

At which point they will then document your claims as to why the space is needed, probably conclude that there is limited evidence of sufficient demand for such a space, they'd likely consider that against the alternative potential uses of a venue (not just now but in the future). They'd probably look at previous attempts to launch a trans-exclusionary lesbian bar which seem to have failed, and also conclude that such a space wouldn't have long term viability. Basically, you end up with the same outcome, but with the addition of some paperwork that ticks the s149 box.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with transphobes being duped out of their money by false claims (and your thread title, is blatantly a false claim). So fill your boots in terms of soliciting their money.

Also, the more I look the more egregiously the title here looks like a total lie.

As others point out there is a material difference between a specific and positive request for a venue from the Council which has been refused; and 'shutting' existing venues.

The Council has no role in shutting any venue that is operating in line with usual planning and health and safety rules. The vast, vast majority of community organisations have to find their own venues, and fundraise to afford the rent. None of them are being 'shut by the council' by virtue of not being gifted a railway arch.

If you lose this case, all that it will mean is that the Council is not obliged to provide you with a venue, putting you in the same boat as the vast majority of CICs. And even if you win the case, it almost certainly still means that the Council is not obliged to provide you with a venue - just that they need to actively consider the 'equality' impacts of saying no before they then say no.

You're being deeply dishonest to pretend that a win in this case would impact on any other venue, or indeed that it could practically lead to you being granted a venue.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with transphobes being duped out of their money by false claims (and your thread title, is blatantly a false claim). So fill your boots in terms of soliciting their money.
I appreciate your commitment to the truth. This sort of thing is everyone's problem. If you look into Twix, it appears she switches sides as is profitable/as she wears out her welcome. I'm shocked that @MNHQ have not acted despite my reporting. I can only imagine whoever looked into it didn't have time to RTFT and just decided that the OP's own carefully-worded posts were ok.
ETA that was to @PlanetJanette

@PlanetJanette Also, the more I look the more egregiously the title here looks like a total lie.
A rare case of agreement amongst women usually on opposite sides of this issue.

@IrnBruAndDietCoke I too have reported the thread to MNHQ

Thank you, really appreciate it.

You didn't want to address the fact that your thread title is deeply dishonest and that you are, in effect, soliciting donations on the basis of a false claim?