It was billed as a reset. A public meeting hosted by local MP Fleur Anderson on Tuesday night at St Mary’s Church promised answers on crime, transport and the decline of the struggling Putney High Street. Instead, for many of those who managed to get in, it confirmed just how little had changed.
Despite a heavyweight panel — with Wandsworth Council cabinet members Jenny Yates and Kemi Akinola, Positively Putney BID director Nicola Grant, and Met Police Inspector Steve Burke — the format allowed for over an hour of speeches and just 15 minutes of public questions. Frustration built in the pews.
Residents had come hoping for practical plans and meaningful dialogue. Instead, they were told about data, branding, and timelines that stretched back before the current councillors took office. Calls to “talk up Putney” rather than focus on its problems struck many as tone-deaf. As one resident later put it: “We’re not being negative — we’re describing what’s happening around us.”
Inspector Burke, returning from leave for the meeting, acknowledged he hadn’t been briefed on a widely reported attack on a 13-year-old boy near Rocks Lane just days earlier. He promised to follow up after being handed the full details by residents on the night. The incident, and the police’s lack of awareness, became a symbol of the disconnect many in the room were feeling.
Retail problems
Shopkeepers spoke of falling footfall, rising theft and a lack of visible enforcement. One local business owner warned that Putney’s independent retail scene was “falling off a cliff,” and said police support was practically non-existent when thefts were reported. Others raised concerns about cash-only businesses, including vape and nail bars, with fears about unregulated practices or worse.
While Nicola Grant of the BID noted the upcoming ban on single-use vapes might help reduce their prevalence, it was clear to most in the room that these piecemeal responses weren’t adding up to a plan.
Cllr Yates answered transport questions by referencing a survey and emphasising that many decisions — including the controversial roadworks and cycle lanes — had been made before she took office. That didn’t cut much ice. Residents said side streets had become dangerous rat runs, air quality was worse, and pedestrians felt more at risk, not less.
Even before the evening began, many were already frustrated. The event “sold out” within days, but empty chairs at the church suggested many hadn’t shown up or had been locked out by an overly rigid ticketing system. Some questioned whether it was designed to limit turnout. Fleur Anderson’s office later clarified that 100 tickets were issued for a venue with 75 seats; just over 60 attended.
Response afterwards
As people filed out, several voiced the same concern: they hadn’t had a chance to speak. That frustration quickly spilled online. In WhatsApp groups and neighbourhood chats, residents called the event another missed opportunity — one that, for all its good intentions, offered no new roadmap for Putney High Street and no new commitment from the council or BID.
What stung most was the sense that Putney’s problems were not new — but still lacked a plan. After more than two years of rising concern about crime, traffic disruption, and retail decline, many had hoped for something concrete. They got speeches. And data. But not direction.
Online, the mood hardened. Residents began discussing what they could do themselves. Ideas included livestreaming future events, demanding publication of the council’s underlying data, and — once again — forming a residents’ group to keep up the pressure and speak with a single voice.
The meeting was meant to show progress. Instead, it revealed how little trust remains — and how close many feel to simply taking the lead themselves.
“Putney High Street belongs to all of us,” one attendee posted later. “If they won’t fix it for us, we’ll fix it for ourselves.”
