Anti-gentrification campaigners in North London rally against Camden Council’s plans to replace South London estate with private-focused high-rise towers, warning of deepening social divides and erosion of community character.
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
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents recent developments regarding the Bacton Low Rise Estate in Gospel Oak, with specific dates and events from 2024 and 2025. The earliest known publication date of similar content is from May 2024, when Camden Council announced Mount Anvil as the development partner. ([news.camden.gov.uk](https://news.camden.gov.uk/mount-anvil-named-as-councils-partner-to-deliver-new-homes-at-bacton-site/?utm_source=openai)) The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([bactontowersaction.org](https://bactontowersaction.org/2025/07/09/bacton-towers-action-respond-to-camden-council/?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The report includes direct quotes from Julia Oertli, spokesperson for Bacton Towers Action (BTA), and Camden Council leader Richard Olszewski. The earliest known usage of these quotes is from July 2025, when BTA responded to Camden Council’s reassurances. ([bactontowersaction.org](https://bactontowersaction.org/2025/07/09/bacton-towers-action-respond-to-camden-council/?utm_source=openai)) The quotes are consistent with previous statements, indicating potential reuse of content.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from a local news outlet, MyLondon News, which is part of the Reach plc network. While Reach plc is a reputable organisation, the specific outlet’s credibility is uncertain. The Bacton Towers Action group is a local campaign group with a public presence, lending credibility to the report. ([bactontowersaction.org](https://bactontowersaction.org/?utm_source=openai))
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
The report aligns with known developments regarding the Bacton Low Rise Estate, including the partnership with Mount Anvil and community opposition. However, the narrative lacks specific factual anchors, such as exact dates and detailed figures, which reduces its credibility. The tone is consistent with local community concerns, but the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets raises questions. ([news.camden.gov.uk](https://news.camden.gov.uk/mount-anvil-named-as-councils-partner-to-deliver-new-homes-at-bacton-site/?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The report presents recent developments regarding the Bacton Low Rise Estate regeneration plans, incorporating direct quotes and specific events from 2024 and 2025. However, the content appears to recycle older material, and the source’s credibility is uncertain. The lack of specific factual anchors and supporting details from other reputable outlets raises questions about the report’s accuracy. Further verification from additional sources is recommended to confirm the claims made.
