Rosanna Thompson :[email protected]/ [email protected] The Problem with Nunhead Reservoir; Trespassing on a Heterotopic Space of Resistance A London Waterworks as the Site of Multiple Struggles for the Commons And the human being is likewise the bordering creature who has no border. - George Simmel1 Four miles south-east of the centre of London you will find Nunhead- a quiet suburb in the borough of Southwark. Take a walk down Brockley Footpath. On the east is Nunhead Cemetery, the west some land obscured by trees and a metal fence. Halfway down the footpath step through a narrow gap in this fence and scramble up a slope. The land opens out to reveal thirty acres of green, flat open space.2You’ve reached one of the highest points in South London and can see for miles in every direction.3 People are sitting on the grass together, playing guitar, drinking, watching the sunset. You are standing on an underground reservoir4 owned by Thames Water, and you are illegally trespassing. Nunhead Reservoir was built by the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company in 1855 and is now owned and run by Thames Water PLC. 5It is ‘live service’, which means it is currently supplying water to thousands of properties in London. Despite access being prohibited people have been going to spend time there, almost as if it were a public park, for many years. Until recently this has carried on without much comment, Thames Water occasionally patching up holes in the fence and seemingly turning a blind eye to the fact that more will be made as quickly as they can repair them. In December 2014 a larger fence was erected6 inside the parameters of the original. It affects the view, having been described as ‘something out of Area 51 or a high-security prison.’(Peckham Peculiar, 2015) Thames Water claim health and safety reasons for installing the new fence, which was nevertheless since been cut through by people continuing to use the space.7This cycle of breaking and repairing continued until Thames Water dramatically increased security sometime in May/June 2015, installing guard dogs and a security guard. The new fence has caused a renewed interest in the reservoir from local people and newspapers, some of whom are concerned by the increased securitization over what by now is perceived as common space. Whatever the reasons for the new fence, there was no dialogue between Thames Water and the people who use the site- the only new signs put up were to deter people by letting them know about the guard dogs patrolling. 1 (1997, p.63) 2 See fig 1 3 See fig 2 4 See fig 2.a 5 Thames Water website- ‘Our History’ 6 See fig.3 and 4 7 See fig. 1 Rosanna Thompson :[email protected]/ [email protected] Spaces such as this one– where the original use has been appropriated or subverted- have been described by theorists as ‘loose spaces’ (Franck and Stevens), or ‘informal space’ (Shaw and Hudson, 2009). One can understand the site using Foucault’s concept of the Heterotopia, which denotes a space which is ‘other’ to normal or everyday spaces, and which takes on multiple, disjointed or contradictory meanings. These are places that ‘interrupt the apparent continuity and normality of ordinary everyday space’ and ‘inject alterity into the sameness, the commonplace, the topicality of everyday society. (…) ‘hetero-topias’ – literally ‘other places’.’ (Dehaene and De Cauter, 2008, pp.3,4) Especially relevant to Nunhead Reservoir is the third principle of the heterotopia: ‘The heterotopia is capable of juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites that are in themselves incompatible.’ (Foucault, 1997, p.334) Dehaene and De Cauter describe heterotopias as ‘aporetic spaces that reveal or represent something about the society in which they reside through the way in which they incorporate and stage the very contradictions this society produces but is unable to resolve.’ (2008) Whilst the key problem is the recent withdrawal of any access to Nunhead Reservoir, I will be using Foucault’s six principles of the heterotopia as a framework to discuss how this one space conceptualises ‘multiple incompatible sites’ and ‘contradictions’ unresolvable in society. For example: it is a place of leisure but also a functional part of infrastructure, its status is private and owned yet it was ‘illegally’ accessed and appropriated by the public, and it is a site in which water makes millions for private shareholders, even though many see water as a collectively owned commons. First I will discuss how the reservoir is/was used and perceived by those who go there. I will then move on to how the increased security around the site represents the wider problems of increased security over public and private space in London. In the second section I will discuss two related struggles over public space in South East London. One historic, the struggle over One Tree Hill 120 years ago, and one currently being fought, over the demolition of the Aylesbury Estate. These two struggles bring out many interesting features of the struggle over Nunhead Reservoir, and root the site to its geographical and historical context. The third section will focus on the resource being processed under the ground, water. I discuss the significance of the fact that Thames Water, as a private company, are making vast profits from a resource many see not just as a common, but as a symbol of the commons. In the fourth I have outlaid some solutions to the problem, regarding ways to gain public access to the site. I have found information about the reservoir through spending time there and speaking to many local people, as well as virtual ethnography research to get a broader range of opinions on its use and perception. ***** 2 Rosanna Thompson :[email protected]/ [email protected] I will now go into more detail about how the site was used and perceived by those who go there to outline what is being fought over. I assumed it to be somewhat secret, but soon realised that many people know about it or have been there. Whenever I have visited there have always been others there. Its internet presence goes some way to illustrate how well known it is, with its own foursquare page8, facebook location,9 countless blogposts, forum discussions and photos. There are hundreds of mentions on twitter10 and instagram. 11From conducting a virtual ethnography on the reservoir as well as spending time there, I have listed the various ways people use it. The view in particular is the reason people are drawn to spend time there. The activities I noted include but are not limited to: Small or large groups of people socialising Enjoying the view (esp. sunset, fireworks night) Running Fitness classes Yoga Silent disco Graffiti Drinking alcohol Playing guitar and other instruments Picnic and Barbequing Taking drugs Dog walking Painting and sketching Sunbathing Photography Outdoor sex Experimenting with setting things on fire Skateboarding Sledging when there’s been snowfall Making videos Rounders and Cricket Watching the football on a screen brought to the site(?) e.t.c Here’s an example of how people have raised the issue of its potential -in one report by two local groups ‘Southwark Cyclists’ and ‘Southwark Living Streets’ (Open Space Strategy, 2012) it was suggested regarding Nunhead and Honor Oak reservoirs that, ‘Given the space that they [the reservoir tops] take up and the opportunity they represent (…) some access to them would be extremely 8 See fig.6 9 See fig.7 10 See https://twitter.com/search?q=nunhead%20reservoir&src=sprv 11 The internet is blamed by many as being the reason for the loss of the reservoir- if it hadn’t been publicised so frequently online not so many people would have visited it, which would mean Thames Water (possibly) wouldn’t have felt the need to close it off for good. 3 Rosanna Thompson :[email protected]/ [email protected] welcome.’ This comment in an official report (as opposed to casual comments online, of which there are many) demonstrates how there has been a desire to officially sanction the use of the reservoir, although, as I will go on to explain, the ‘secret’ status it holds is to many, a large part of its allure. ***** The increased security around the reservoir is indicative of a trend towards increased securitization of the city, brought about by an increase in ‘private/public’ spaces in London. Anna Minton argues that ‘the privatisation of the public realm, through the growth of ‘private-public’ space, produces over- controlled, sterile places which lack connection to the reality and diversity of the local environment, with the result that they all tend to look the same.’ (2006 p.3). In London we can see examples of this in gated communities (e.g. New Caledonian Wharf and Bow Quarter) shopping centres (the two Westfield centres) and privately owned squares and streets (e.g. Canary Wharf, Granary Square, Paternoster Square). As Franck and Stevens write in Loose Space, ‘City officials and property investors have vested interests in a homogeneous, predictable and well-ordered environment where use and appearance are controlled. The unregulated movements and actions of people, the ill-defined boundaries […] become reasons for tightening up space.’ (2007, p.22) The reservoir is an example of a space which until its recent increased securitization has been paradoxically liminal in terms of its private/ public status. It’s been used as if it were public, and yet its private status has allowed it to be outside of state control- free from the ‘city officials’ who might also try to control it.