Labour councillors in Lambeth launch petition against Sadiq Khan policing cuts as Brixton Police Station in London faces loss of 24 hour front desk

When Sir Sadiq Khan stood on the campaign trail ahead of his 2024 re-election, he made a clear and simple pledge: every London borough would keep a 24-hour police front counter.

It was written plainly in his manifesto.

Londoners, he said, would continue to have round-the-clock access to a police station desk in their area.

Fast forward to this week, and that commitment looks very different.

Cuts agreed by the Metropolitan Police mean that across the entire capital, only two police stations will retain 24-hour front desks.

For many boroughs, that promise of constant access has quietly slipped away.

Lambeth Labour Turns on City Hall

In an unexpected twist, it’s not just opposition parties kicking up a fuss.

Labour councillors in Lambeth — the same party as the Mayor — have launched a petition to protect the front desk at Brixton Police Station.

They argue the counter is “vital in keeping our borough safe” and say the decision sends entirely the wrong message to residents worried about crime.

According to the group, the closures were pushed through without proper consultation with locals, council leaders or community stakeholders.

Under the new plan, Brixton’s desk would operate from 10am to 10pm on weekdays and 9am to 7pm at weekends.

Outside those hours, residents would need to travel to Lewisham or Charing Cross for face-to-face help — journeys that could take well over an hour on foot.

For a city the size of London, critics say that’s hardly practical.

The £260 Million Gap Driving the Cuts

The changes come as the Met wrestles with a £260 million budget shortfall.

Back in October, the force signed off on a cost-saving blueprint that would shut 18 front desks entirely and retain just 20 across the capital — with only two operating 24 hours a day.

City Hall insists the decision is operational, not political.

A spokesperson for Sadiq Khan said the Met had to make “tough choices” after more than a decade of funding pressures under previous governments.

They argue that demand for physical front desks has fallen, with more people reporting crimes online or via 101.

The focus, they say, is on visible neighbourhood policing rather than buildings.

Still, that’s little comfort to residents who prefer speaking to an officer in person — especially older Londoners or victims of serious crime.

Lib Dems Cry Foul Over ‘Hypocrisy’

The row has quickly turned political. On January 29, Liberal Democrats at the London Assembly proposed a two-year pause on the closures.

The amendment suggested dipping into £14 million of reserves to keep counters open while a proper review was carried out.

It was voted down by Labour and Green Assembly Members.

South West London Assembly Member Gareth Roberts accused Lambeth Labour of “weapons grade hypocrisy,” arguing they rejected the lifeline at City Hall before launching a local petition.

His message was blunt: you can’t vote for closures one week and campaign against them the next.

MPs and Ministers Weigh In

The backlash hasn’t been confined to one borough.

Joe Powell, Labour MP for Kensington — another area losing its last 24-hour desk — admitted he disagreed with the decision.

However, he said the focus must now shift to ensuring neighbourhood teams remain visible and accessible.

Meanwhile, Shadow Policing Minister Matt Vickers laid the blame squarely at the Mayor’s door.

He claimed Londoners already feel less safe and warned that closing counters would discourage crime reporting further.

He also reiterated the Conservative pledge to recruit 10,000 new officers nationally if elected — a familiar refrain in policing debates.

A Wider Crime Debate

This row lands against a difficult backdrop for the capital.

London was recently ranked the 15th most dangerous city in Europe for crime, according to Numbeo’s Crime Index.

Globally, it placed 100th out of 385 cities surveyed.

The capital ranked below cities like Athens, Brussels, Milan and Barcelona in perceived safety levels.

However, it’s worth noting London is not the UK’s worst-performing city on that index — Bradford, Coventry, Birmingham and Manchester all scored higher for crime.

Still, perception matters. And critics argue that removing visible police counters risks reinforcing public anxiety.

Trade union leader Sharon Graham of Unite described the closures as “incredibly short-sighted,” warning they could lead to more unreported crime and increased stress on staff.

The Stations Facing Change

Among those affected are Kentish Town, Tottenham, Edmonton, Harrow, Bethnal Green, Dagenham, Chingford, Kensington, Hammersmith, Twickenham, Lavender Hill, Wimbledon, Hayes and Plumstead.

Four additional sites already operating reduced desks — including Barking Learning Centre, Church Street in Westminster, Royalty Studios in Kensington and Chelsea, and Mitcham — are also set to shut their counters completely.

For many communities, that means the end of walk-in services as they’ve known them.

What’s Next?

The closures are expected to proceed unless funding is found or political pressure forces a rethink.

The Mayor says he is in ongoing talks with ministers and the Met Commissioner about financial support.

In the meantime, the Met insists it will prioritise frontline policing and visible patrols, arguing that bricks and mortar are less important than officers on the streets.

But with borough Labour groups now publicly dissenting, this may not be the last internal battle over policing before the next mayoral cycle.

If crime statistics worsen — or public dissatisfaction grows — the issue could become a defining political fault line in London.

Summary

A clear campaign promise to maintain 24-hour police front counters in every London borough has unravelled after sweeping cost-cutting measures by the Metropolitan Police.

Only two stations will now remain open around the clock, triggering backlash not just from opposition parties but from Labour councillors in Lambeth itself.

While City Hall argues the decision reflects financial reality and changing public demand, critics say it undermines public safety and trust at a time when London’s crime perception is already under scrutiny.

With political tensions rising and community concerns mounting, the debate over police visibility versus physical access is far from over.