Anti-gentrification campaigners in North London have voiced vehement opposition to the Camden Council’s regeneration plans for the Bacton Low Rise Estate in Gospel Oak, condemning the council’s prioritisation of private developers over the urgent need for genuine affordable housing. Critics argue that this shift signals a broader trend of using public land to facilitate lucrative private ventures at the expense of local communities, further fueling social inequality.
The estate, originally built in the 1960s, was demolished in 2018 with a promise to deliver hundreds of council homes supported by local residents. However, expectations have rapidly been undermined as the project has veered off course. After a partial development in 2017 yielded only 46 social homes amid 21 private flats, the project stalled, only to be handed over to the private developer Mount Anvil in 2024. Since then, the plans have been met with rising discontent, proposing to double the number of homes and introduce tower blocks extending as high as 26 storeys—an obvious gentrification tactic that strips away the community’s character.
Local campaigners from the Bacton Towers Action group describe the new proposals as an assault on the neighbourhood’s identity. They condemn what they see as the council’s abandonment of its original social housing commitments, with the latest plans offering only a dismal 26% of affordable homes, deeply insufficient for a community already suffering from housing shortages. The high-rise structures, they claim, threaten to create segregated enclaves where council tenants are pushed into a minority within tower blocks that seem designed solely to attract higher-income private investors rather than serve residents in need.
Julia Oertli, spokesperson for BTA, sharply criticised the council’s handling of the project, highlighting the lack of consultation and transparency from the outset. She denounced the replacement of the original scheme with a plan that consolidates private flats and high-rise tower blocks, which she described as “grotesque” and entirely out of touch with community needs. Residents’ anxieties are compounded by memories of Grenfell and the widespread fear of living in tower blocks, fears exploited by the council’s rush to maximize profit.
Moreover, the campaign warns that this development could intensify the housing crisis—bringing an additional 1,000 residents to the area without any corresponding investment in infrastructure or services. Mount Anvil’s consultation process has been called into question, with locals reporting rude staff and inaccessible engagement efforts. The developer’s online consultation frequently frames campaigners as obstructive, a tactic that only fuels distrust and skepticism among residents already wary of the council’s prioritisation of private profits over social welfare.
In response, Camden Council’s leader, Richard Olszewski, has claimed community engagement has been extensive, with multiple consultations, coffee mornings, and ‘Meet the Developer’ events. Yet, this appears to be a token gesture designed to placate criticism rather than a genuine effort to address community concerns. The council’s rhetoric about “balancing affordable and private housing” rings hollow in the face of proposals that will effectively deepen social divides and accelerate gentrification.
Campaigners are unimpressed by these reassurances, viewing them as window dressing designed to mask the relentless encroachment of private interests into public housing. They are demanding transparency and a halt to plans that threaten to erode the community’s social fabric. The prevailing attitude among opposition voices is clear: the focus should be on expanding truly affordable council housing, not catering to private developers eager to cash in on land meant for the public good.
While the project has received awards praising design and earlier community involvement, critics argue these accolades are meaningless if the underlying intent is to transform the estate into a commercial playground for the wealthy. Camden’s words about “meeting local needs” are regarded with suspicion, given the borough’s history of limited affordable housing delivery despite ambitious-sounding initiatives like the Community Investment Programme.
Local campaigners remain resolutely opposed, viewing the current proposals as a betrayal of the original promises made to residents. With mounting community resistance, it is evident that Camden Council’s strategy of urban regeneration is increasingly seen as an exercise in gentrification rather than social renewal. Until meaningful changes are made to prioritize affordable housing over private profit, the community’s voice risks being drowned out in a process driven more by developer interests than the needs of ordinary people. The silence from Mount Anvil on these criticisms only underscores the disconnect between the developer’s commercial goals and the community’s rightful demand for social justice.
Source: Noah Wire Services