Every main national newspaper covered it in depth and hundreds of news websites followed those stories.  Here is a small selection from the cuttings file.

The BBC’s news item by local democracy reporter Charlotte Lillywhite

A correction in The Guardian

How AI reacted …in typically puerile fashion!

The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal to the proposed Glassmill development, bringing an end to one of the most controversial planning battles in recent local memory.

In her ruling, Inspector Joanna Gilbert concluded that while the scheme would deliver some minor public benefits, these were far outweighed by the adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, alongside harm to surrounding heritage assets.

For residents, the result represents a remarkable community victory. Here, we publish reaction from all sides.

Cllr Elizabeth Campbell, Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, said:

“We raised objections to this development as it would have had a huge detrimental effect on our views and on our conservation areas. I am delighted that the planning inspectorate accepted our concerns.

“I especially want to pay tribute to The Chelsea Citizen and to the residents who campaigned with such determination on an issue they care deeply about. This shows the best of local democracy – people making their voices heard, standing up for their community and helping to shape their area.”

Rob McGibbon – who led the campaign, first as a resident and then as Editor of The Chelsea Citizen – said: 

“I am relieved and delighted Rockwell’s plans have finally been thrown out. This is a decision for common sense and I applaud the Inspector’s decision. This development was totally wrong for the area in every conceivable way.  It was plain to see that the design and scale of it had more flaws than floors!

‘Rockwell and its directors showed complete disdain for residents and the democratic planning process throughout this lengthy – and expensive – application. Their attitude was unnecessary and regrettable.

’This has been a difficult and exhausting campaign, but at last we have the right outcome. People power has won through and it is proof that it is possible for communities to fight off rapacious property developers when they stand together.

“It takes one person to start a campaign. It takes a community to win it.”

A spokesperson for Rockwell Property – which is believed to have spent £10m and five years developing the scheme – said:

“We are obviously disappointed with the decision as we firmly believe in this regeneration project. We wanted to see it delivered and made a number of changes to the scheme following feedback from the public. We significantly reduced the height of the building while remaining committed to offering 50% affordable social rented homes – which is rare for any private development in London.

“We did not compromise on quality, using the world-renowned architects, Farrells, so it is disappointing the inspector did not share our view that this would be great addition to London’s skyline. We were going to deliver real community benefits including a free-to-access community hub run by local charities, and significant public realm improvements next to the River Thames. 

“An unprecedented 1,900 people signed up to a letter in support of the project, and we thank them for their support throughout this five-year process.

“There is a dire need for more housing in London; in Wandsworth alone, there are over 7,000 homeless people. The number of private housing starts in London has dived by 84% from 33,782 in 2015 to only 5,547 in 2025, so it is extremely disappointing to see a scheme that would deliver much-needed affordable housing turned down. We will carefully review the inspector’s decision before deciding what to do next. As such, it is premature to speculate about future plans.”

David Waddell – on behalf of The Chelsea Society and the Cheyne Walk Trust – said:

“The Chelsea Society and Cheyne Walk Trust warmly welcome the dismissal of the Appeal against overdevelopment of the Glassmill site. Particularly, we thank amenity societies and residents on the south of the Thames for their hard work and dedication in opposing the Appeal. We note specifically the Inspector’s concerns to protect the integrity of the open river vistas and the conservation areas with their many listed buildings on the Chelsea bank.”

A spokesman for Friends of Battersea Riverside said: 

“We warmly welcome the Inspector’s decision to dismiss this appeal and uphold Wandsworth Council’s unanimous refusal.

“This was never a close call. A 29-storey tower on a site where local policy sets a maximum of six storeys is not a marginal breach — it is a wholesale disregard for the planning framework that this community helped shape. The Inspector has confirmed what residents, local societies, and councillors of all parties said from the outset: this scheme was simply too tall, too massive, and too damaging to the riverside character of Battersea Bridge to be acceptable.

Over 2,000 local people objected. The London Mayor declined to intervene. Wandsworth’s own planning officers found the scheme would cause significant harm. The Inspector has now reached the same conclusion.

We hope this decision sends a clear message: the Local Plan exists to be followed, not circumvented. The Glassmill site has real potential for a development that works with its surroundings. We look forward to engaging constructively on proposals that genuinely reflect the scale and character of this exceptional riverside location.”

Ben Coleman MP said:

Screenshot

Screenshot

Screenshot

Screenshot

In a crushing blow to the developer, Planning Inspector Joanna Gilbert dismissed Rockwell’s appeal against Wandsworth Council’s refusal of the scheme following a bruising seven-day public inquiry earlier this year.

After weeks of deliberation, Ms Gilbert rejected the proposal saying the tower was far too tall for Battersea Bridge site, it was harmful to the Thames riverside character and skyline, historic bridges, parks and conservation areas would be damaged, the developer was criticised for failing to properly test lower-rise alternatives and the housing benefits did not outweigh visual and heritage harm

The decision brings down the curtain — at least for now — on one of the fiercest planning battles south-west London has seen in years.

Residents’ groups, heritage campaigners and local protesters had lined up against the scheme, arguing the tower would overwhelm Battersea Bridge, Battersea Park and views across to Chelsea Embankment.

The campaign against the tower — spearheaded by The Chelsea Citizen and its editor Rob McGibbon — drew support from an extraordinary cast of high-profile objectors including Sir Mick Jagger, Felicity Kendal, Eric Clapton, Anthea Turner and Harry Hill.

And in a dramatic twist revealed by The Citizen, Rockwell made a late bid in April to take the decision out of Inspector Gilbert’s hands altogether and hand it to Housing Secretary Steve Reed.The move — known in planning circles as “recovery” — would have seen ministers in Whitehall decide the fate of the tower instead of the inspector. But the request was declined, leaving Ms Gilbert to make the final call. Her decision came through at 11.20am today.

Throughout the inquiry, opponents repeatedly warned the proposed skyscraper would permanently scar one of the Thames’ most sensitive stretches.

Rockwell’s revised plans involved demolishing the existing Glassmill office block and replacing it with a 29-storey tower containing around 110 homes, with roughly half classed as “affordable” by habitable room.

The developer insisted the scheme — designed by the Farrells architectural practice — would become a bold new landmark while helping tackle London’s housing crisis.

But critics said it was hopelessly oversized for the site and sat outside Wandsworth’s designated tall building zones.

Wandsworth councillors unanimously refused the application last year, branding the tower an unacceptable intrusion into a sensitive heritage setting beside Battersea Bridge.

During the inquiry, campaigners argued the building would cast shadows over homes and parts of Battersea Park, heap extra pressure on the already notorious Battersea Bridge traffic bottleneck and destroy historic Thames views.

Historic England also intervened, describing the proposal as harmful and incongruous.

Rockwell’s legal team at the inquiry was led by veteran planning silk Russell Harris KC, supported by architect Peter Barbalov and planning consultant Jonathan Marginson. Managing director Nicholas Mee attended much of the hearing but did not himself give evidence.

Despite today’s defeat, the battle may not yet be entirely over.

Rockwell’s remaining option would be a legal challenge in the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

That would not amount to a second planning appeal. Instead, the company would have to argue that the Inspector made an error in law — for example through procedural unfairness, misinterpretation of policy or apparent bias.

Any such challenge would have to be launched within six weeks.

If successful, the decision could be quashed and sent back for redetermination — though the court would not substitute its own planning judgment.

At precisely 1pm, Planning Inspector Joanna Gilbert — cool, yet affable and quick to smile, bespectacled and inscrutable — took her seat on the raised dais, scribbled a few final notes and readied to bring down the curtain on one of London’s most bitter planning battles.

Inside Wandsworth Town Hall’s oak-panelled chamber, the atmosphere could hardly be called electric. But it was certainly tense. There was stillness and quiet across the chamber, except for whispers and the occasional sound of important final ‘Closing Statement’ papers being anxiously shuffled. 

On one side of the room, battle-hardened residents’ groups perched on the faded leather of red seats, daring to hope that the tide had turned against the controversial 29-storey tower that would be called One Battersea Bridge.

Opposite them sat the Rockwell top brass. Nicholas Mee – its camera-shy managing director – frequently had his head bowed over his iPhone. At other times, he appeared deep in thought. In front of him were his highly paid troops — led by the pre-eminent planning silk Russell Harris KC, architect Peter Barbalov and planner Jonathan Marginson.

First to fire for the opposition was The Battersea Society’s William Walton, with a family pack of Fruit Pastilles on his desk for comfort.  And he did not hold back on his ire (or the sweets). He blasted Rockwell’s “deceitful” PR campaign ahead of last year’s council rejection, accusing the developer of “hoodwinking” the public with glossy newsletters and alleged bogus support.

William Walton

“This… is little more than contrived support — what’s now known as ‘astroturfing’,” he told the hearing. “The very opposite of a genuine grassroots campaign.” He also cast doubt on Rockwell’s promise of 110 homes — half billed as “affordable” — questioning both the scheme’s location and its architectural merit. “We reject the notion that this is an exemplary design,” Walton said bluntly.

Douglas Edwards KC

Wandsworth Council’s barrister, Douglas Edwards KC, doubled down — repeatedly hammering home the scheme’s scale. The council had already branded the tower “grossly unacceptable” — and Edwards made clear that position had not shifted. He warned the Inspector the building would loom over a “sensitive” stretch of the Thames, taking in Battersea Bridge, Chelsea Embankment and Battersea Park. Historic England, he reminded the inquiry, had already condemned it as “harmful and incongruous” — and feared it could open the floodgates to more high-rises.

And in a key moment, Edwards pushed back hard on Rockwell’s housing argument. “London’s housing need is addressed strategically through the London Plan — not by individual speculative applications,” he said. His conclusion was stark: “The proposal causes substantial harm. Planning permission should be refused.”

During a break, murmurs rippled through the chamber — with many sensing the council and residents had landed heavy blows. But then came Rockwell’s counterattack. Up stepped Harris. Well, he remained seated, which was just as well because his speech would last one hour and 25 minutes (shared with an assistant). In a Welsh lilt, his delivery was crisp and polished as he retraced the case for the defence. 

Russell Harris KC

In a touching aside, Harris told the inquiry that he had written his closing statement whilst sitting by Battersea Bridge, literally looking at the Glassmill building. Clearly, the sight of all that 1980s mirrored glass had not inspired affectionate prose. He went on to describe it as a “harmful” site, a “sad hymn” of which “all [should] be collectively ashamed”. No one during the inquiry had spoken in defence of Glassmill’s architectural merit, but Harris clearly felt it necessary to throw bricks at its glass.

On the wonders of Rockwell’s vision, Harris stuck loyally to the hymn sheet. This development, he insisted, was “a unique opportunity”. Far from dominating the skyline, the new tower would “enhance” the Thames and sit comfortably beside Battersea Bridge, which, he argued, “could take a tall building”. He also praised “the very talented” Terry Farell for his design, saying “this building represents his last work”.

Harris went on to say that the tower was a “building of strength” and would be “a literal front door to Wandsworth”. The certainty of his passion gave the impression that he held the key to that very door. Maybe Harris loves the tower so much that he secretly longs for it to be built near his own home.

Harris also went on the offensive and tore into Wandsworth’s planning rules: “The local plan is out of date… it is not a bar to tall buildings,” he declared. He also castigated the pre-application advice he claimed was given to Rockwell during “12-14 meetings”. He said that during that time there was “not a single request” for the tower to be of “mid height”. He dismissed ideas of building a lower tower at this location as “a confection”, “implausible and undeliverable”. 

Housing was Harris’ central matter of mitigation. With London needing 66,000 homes per year, he said the scheme’s affordable housing offer was “integral” to its very design — and dismissed the council’s stance as dangerously complacent.

He also directly condemned two key council officers who had given evidence. Referring to council planner Joanna Chambers, who had suggested it wasn’t Wandsworth’s job to meet the London-wide need for housing, Harris shot back: “That is a staggering and, we fear, wrong-headed position.” He also took aim at another council witness Ben Eley, accusing him of overstating the tower’s visual impact.

Even a late intervention from the Environment Agency — demanding proof the build wouldn’t damage nearby Thames flood defences — failed to derail Rockwell’s case. Harris insisted a full flood risk assessment had been carried out and that the scheme posed no threat to the river’s protective barriers.

It is two years since Rockwell Property announced its plans for One Battersea Bridge. The inquiry has lasted seven days. Hundreds – maybe even thousands – of pages of notes and scores of A3 pages with computer images have been analysed and debated. 

Now, the fate of the communities living along this strip of Battersea and Chelsea rest with one woman. Will Inspector Gilbert allow Rockwell’s appeal and grant permission, or dismiss it? She will deliver her decision in early May.  

Inspector Joanne Gilbert

During Day Six of the inquiry, an urgent email landed in Planning Inspector Joanna Gilbert’s inbox from Government planning adviser Shea Bunyan.

The message carried a stark warning: before a single brick is laid on the proposed 29-storey tower, developer Rockwell must prove the scheme won’t damage or undermine vital Thames flood defences sitting less than 16 metres away.

Bunyan warned bluntly: “Without these demonstrations, there is no evidence to demonstrate the development will not be compromising the structural integrity, effectiveness and stability of the flood defences.”

And she made the stakes crystal clear — if that proof cannot be provided, the scheme should not go ahead because of the risk of increased flooding.

Campaigners opposing the tower seized on the intervention as a major breakthrough. Philip Whyte, of the Wandsworth Society, told the inquiry: “This is a good step forward.”

Earlier, residents’ groups had grilled Rockwell’s key planning witness Jonathan Marginson, who stood firm in defence of the scheme. He described the tower as being of “the highest architectural quality” and insisted its 110 homes were “critical” to tackling London’s housing crisis.

But that claim was swiftly challenged. William Walton, of the Battersea Society, pointed out that Wandsworth is already one of London’s top-performing boroughs for housebuilding — and is currently exceeding the Government’s five-year housing targets.

Marginson hit back, insisting the borough cannot rest on its laurels. “London is not a single housing market,” he said. “Every borough has a duty to meet the housing crisis.”

Transport links were also put under the spotlight. Rockwell has touted the site as well connected — but Walton countered that the nearest Tube station is a 29-minute walk away, with Clapham Junction a 25-minute trek on foot.

As the high-stakes hearing nears its conclusion, all eyes now turn to final submissions, which will be made today. Then, Inspector Joanna Gilbert, effectively the Government’s referee, will close the inquiry and begin the process of making her decision.

Behind the scenes, optimism is growing among campaigners. Residents’ groups told The Citizen they are “quietly confident” the appeal will be thrown out.

Rockwell’s managing director Nicholas Mee – the only person during the proceedings who has refused to allow his photograph to be taken by The Citizen – struck a more cautious note. “I’m sorry, I don’t have a view on it,” he said when approached by this reporter. “A lot of evidence has been heard and we’ll await the decision.”

Inspector Gilbert announced yesterday that she expects to deliver her ruling by early May.

The inquiry continues

Ms Jagger, a resident in the Royal Borough, has weighed in with an excoriating FOUR PAGE objection letter that was sent to RBKC council late on Tuesday. In it, she claims that the new AGC – Adult Gaming Centre – would turn the area into a “gambling hub’.

The objection centres around a licensing and a planning application submitted by Silvertime Amusements to move its existing shop at No.169 to bigger premises just three doors away at No.177-179.

Ms Jagger, 80, has stated in stark language that the venue will “exploit” children travelling through the area from nearby schools, “increase” crime and anti-social behaviour, and be a “nuisance” to the public. She is echoing grave concerns already expressed to The Citizen by campaigners and ward councillors.

One issue of acute concern is that Earl’s Court has “50%” of the borough’s “specialist supported accommodation”, which is used by people with “complex needs”, such as mental health problems and “a pre-disposition to addictions”.

Ms Jagger – the former wife of Rolling Stone Mick Jagger – says that these people will be significantly at risk from having a far bigger and more visible gambling centre on Earl’s Court Road.

From the letter: ‘This is the wrong place for this business and contributing to the saturation of betting and AGCs within several meters of one another – I am aware that this would not be permitted in other main areas of the borough, why is this been contemplated to be permitted in Earl’s Court?’

Silvertime – a company that has been in the slots business for 40 years and prides itself on being “family owned and run” – wants to take over the space vacated by the Lloyd’s Bank. It has issued a lengthy statement to The Citizen, which we print in full below.

In one development that has further angered residents and ward councillors, Silvertime has applied for a 24/7 licence. Campaigners say that, if granted, this would lead to another casino nearby – Admiral – applying for a similar licence.

In Ms Jagger’s letter – printed under the letterhead ‘The Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation’ – she repeatedly blasts Silvertime’s proposal and the consultation process run by the council.

The right to object to Silvertime’s application closed yesterday – 24th March – but campaigners say that the entire process has been “flawed” because the council’s comments portal has been offline due to the cyber attack. Residents also say that the option to email comments has not been working effectively.

Ms Jagger also states that a “newspaper” advert that the council is legally obliged to publish alerting residents to application has NOT been readily available.

From the letter: ‘It is understood that the Licensing Department has complied with the Statutory Requirement under the Act but an ad in a newspaper that residents do not have access to and one A4 letterhead on a flank wall is perhaps not in the spirit of the law, particularly on what is known to a particularly sensitive location.’

A note from RBKC to residents as regards the consultation process

Councillor Linda Wade, who presents Earl’s Court ward, told The Citizen how Ms Jagger got involved in the campaign. She said:  “One of our residents was protesting about the casino on Earl’s Court Road and someone said that they knew Bianca and that they would tell her.

“As soon as she heard about it all, we spoke and she said that she wanted to help. Her letter is brilliant and gets to the heart of all the issues. We are very grateful to her for stepping. The casino is a very serious matter and simply must be stopped. It will turn this area into a gambling hub.”

In recent times, Ms Jagger’s ex-husband Mick, who has a home in Chelsea, has been a vocal supporter of The Citizen’s high profile campaign to stop a 29-storey tower of luxury flats being built by Battersea Bridge.

Cllr Wade added: “As a councillor – as well as one who sits in the Licensing Committee – I am very concerned about the consultation process. It has been a shambles and flawed. It seems to be weighted in favour of businesses, rather than residents.

“I am also concerned that the council is fearful of rejecting applications made by these gaming companies because they are worried about legal fees if they appeal. But the council must not make this an excuse. They must stand up to these companies – as a matter or urgency.”

The Citizen has approached RBKC for comment. The full response from Silvertime is below.

The Citizen has also today requested to interview the owners of Silvertime to discuss the issues outlined by campaigners.

Bianca Jagger’s Objection Letter

From “family owned and run” Silvertime’s website

Silvertime’s statement in full

As the high-stakes inquiry entered its second week, opponents said the tide appeared to be turning against developers Rockwell.

Veteran campaigner Dr Michael Jubb, of the Battersea Society, told The Citizen: “The final decision rests with the planning inspector, but I’m reasonably optimistic, after what we’ve heard so far.”

Jubb — who earlier accused Rockwell of peddling misleading claims of local support — doubled down, saying: “The reasons for refusal of planning permission remain sound. The scale of the harm from the development vastly outweighs the proposed benefits.”

Dr Michael Jubb who is representing the Civic Societies             Photo ©Rob McGibbon/TCC

Another campaigner, speaking anonymously, was even more blunt: “Rockwell are just dancing on the head of a pin. They won’t win.”

But inside the hearing room, the mood was anything but calm. Day Five saw a tense showdown as Wandsworth Council’s planning expert Joanna Chambers went head-to-head with the developer’s heavyweight barrister, Russell Harris KC.

Chambers took the stand to defend the council’s decision to throw out the 29-storey tower planned for beside Battersea Bridge — only to face a sustained and forensic grilling from the silk.

Ms Joanna Chambers, representing Wandsworth Council Photo ©Rob McGibbon/TCC

At the centre of the dispute is a stark question: is the tower simply too big, too bulky — and in entirely the wrong place?

The scheme, dubbed One Battersea Bridge by its architects Farrells, was rejected last year after fierce opposition from residents in Battersea, Chelsea and beyond.

Giving evidence, during which voices were raised between Chambers and counsel, she said the proposed skyscraper would be “overbearing” in a sensitive stretch of riverside defined by low-rise buildings — stressing the site lies outside any designated tall buildings zone.

She warned the development would cause clear harm to the character of the area and breach Wandsworth’s long-established planning policies.

“Brownfield land has to be developed, of course — but it has to be the right scheme,” she said.

Rockwell’s legal team hit back.

Harris argued the council’s own policies do, in fact, allow tall buildings beyond designated zones — insisting there is no blanket ban on height.

The developer’s case is that this is exactly the kind of landmark riverside site where a bold building can work.

Rockwell maintains the tower would be a striking addition to London’s skyline — not an overbearing intrusion — and says any negative impacts, including loss of sunlight to surrounding properties, would be minimal.

Backing the scheme, the developer’s planning expert Jonathan Marginson praised the design as “a building of the highest architectural quality”.

Planning expert Jonathan Marginson, represent gin Rockwell ©Photo Rob McGibbon/TCC

He said the project — delivering 110 homes, around half of them affordable — was “critical” in tackling London’s housing shortage.

The need for social housing in Wandsworth, he told the inquiry, was “pretty colossal”.

He added the scheme would make “a significant contribution to the growth of London, in particular housing”.

With both sides digging in, the planning inspector now faces a finely balanced decision.

The inquiry continues

The Inspector’s view of the grand chamber at Wandsworth Town Hall ©Photo Rob McGibbon/TCC

McGibbon, who is the editor of The Chelsea Citizen, delivered a strongly worded statement as an ‘Interested Party’ on Day Four of the public inquiry into Rockwell Property’s bid to build a 29-storey tower known as One Battersea Bridge.

Reading from a prepared statement in the grand chamber at Wandsworth Town Hall, Chelsea resident McGibbon, 60, opened the day’s proceedings. He revealed that he had led the charge to stop the tower for the last two years and that he has – as a journalist – fully researched all aspects of the development proposals. And he didn’t hold back with his views. 

Addressing his speech directly to Inspector Joanne Gilbert, he said: “One Battersea Bridge is wrong on every level. It has more flaws, than floors. It’s the Emperor’s clothes. We can all see it for what it is – except those to my right [Rockwell’s highly paid representatives], who will have you believe otherwise. And we know why that is.”

Rob McGibbon – campaigner and Citizen editor – in the council chamber after delivering his statement ©TheChelseaCitizen

In his statement, McGibbon summarised key junctures during he planning process. He said that local opposition is unanimous and overwhelming — with more than 5,000 people signing a petition and over 1,400 residents who had lodged formal objections to Wandsworth Council. McGibbon urged Inspector Gilbert to refer back to those early comments during her decision-making – rather the mass of technical “evidence” brought to the inquiry by Rockwell.

He said: “I urgently draw your attention to those early comments. These represent the very heartbeat of an anxious community – and they reveal far more to this inquiry than any CGI poster, or lofty ponderings about “receptors” and the “kinetic experience” of this area. These people live here. Many will have their homes blighted by this tower. Equity will evaporate. Lives will be wrecked.”

In one of the most explosive claims of the hearing so far, McGibbon accused Rockwell – ultimately owned by Monaco-based tax exile Donal Mulryan – of manipulating public support by paying a canvassing company to file hundreds of similarly worded letters of support to the portal – even from people as far away as Stoke and Rochdale. “The exercise deployed says a lot about the company that could own this land,” he said, scathingly

McGibbon told how he had written about the loading of the letters “contemporaneously” on his petition blog on change.org and urged Inspector Gilbert to read those posts as an inquiry research tool.

During the planning applications process Rockwell has leaned heavily on its headline pledge to deliver 50% affordable housing — but McGibbon urged the Inspector to treat the offer with scepticism. 

He said: “Without any binding legal contract in place, we all know that this is simply a promise made with fingers crossed behind their back – by a company that wilfully skewed the democratic process of something as innocent as a planning comments portal. The promise must be treated with caution.”

McGibbon holds up one of his old campaign posters during his statement delivery

McGibbon, who has been known on national newspapers across four decades for writing big celebrity interviews, also shone a spotlight on the financial muscle behind the scheme — including US investment giant Cerberus, named after a mythical three-headed guard dog of the Underworld. 

He implored Inspector Gilbert to look into the “alarming financial realities” of the companies behind the project. In a striking analogy, McGibbon added: “I only suggest this because it’s a bit like sending your favourite grandchild to stay with a family abroad. You’d like to know a bit about that family first.”

Watch the full video of Mr McGibbon’s statement as an ‘Interested Party’ HERE

Drawing on his knowledge of local history, McGibbon issued a stark warning by pointing to the Chelsea Waterfront towers — approved against fierce opposition. Those buildings, he said, are now “despised locally” and often sit in darkness, hinting they may be little more than investment assets for absentee owners.

“Some things look better in CGI,” he said, taking a swipe at the late architect Sir Terry Farrell who created the towers and described them as “two dancers in the sky”. In a twist of irony, McGibbon noted that the very developers behind Chelsea Waterfront – Hong Kong property giants Hutchinson Whampoa – has objected to One Battersea Bridge.

McGibbon saved his fiercest attack for the closing section of his statement. He said: “When the [Wandsworth] council refused planning a year ago, I gave a quote to a newspaper. I said: ‘This was the Donald Trump of planning proposals – cold-hearted and vain, driven by ignorance, arrogance and avarice.’ I stand by that comment today.”

In a direct appeal to Inspector Gilbert, he warned that her decision would shape the future of the riverside for generations. He said: “Your decision is critical for the future of Battersea riverside. I hope that you dismiss the appeal and not gift this precious, historic piece of land to a developer simply so it can make money for its tax exile owner.”

In the afternoon session of the inquiry, a heavyweight planning expert stepped up to bat for the controversial tower — declaring it would be a “distinctive landmark” boosting the Thames skyline.

Rockwell’s star witness Dr Chris Miele, senior partner at Montagu Evans, insisted the much-criticised skyscraper would not dominate its surroundings — but sit “comfortably” within the broad sweep of the river.

Dr Chris Miele, senior partner at Montagu Evans and witness for Rockwell

He told the hearing the building’s height was entirely appropriate, arguing its vertical design would create a “striking visual relationship” with the low, horizontal line of Battersea Bridge.

Miele said the lower levels of the scheme would blend in with neighbouring riverside blocks — including Albion Riverside — and claimed views from Battersea Park would be limited, with the tower only partly visible in winter and hidden by tree foliage in summer.

But his boldest pitch was that the scheme would become a recognisable London marker — a building that helps people get their bearings and anchors one of the capital’s key river crossings.

Waxing lyrical, he said those crossing the bridge would experience “a sense of arrival—a sense of destination.”

And of the 29-storey tower itself, he added: “I feel strongly that what is being proposed is remarkable.”

Under cross-examination from Wandsworth’s counsel Douglas Edwards KC, however, Miele conceded the building would indeed appear “prominent” — not just from Battersea Bridge, but across parts of the surrounding neighbourhood. 

The inquiry also heard Historic England objected to the project, calling the skyscraper a “visually intrusive and incongruous addition to the townscape.”

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea had also weighed in, warning the tower would appear “discordant, dominating and oppressive” when viewed from across the river.

Planning officers concluded that the building would harm views and the setting of a number of protected sites, including Albert Bridge, Battersea Bridge, Battersea Park, the Royal Hospital Chelsea and St Mary’s Church.

The inquiry continues

In a blistering attack, The Battersea Society’s Dr Michael Jubb accused the firm behind the 29-storey scheme of misleading the public during the critical months in the lead up to last year’s meeting of Wandsworth Council’s Planning Applications Committee.

He told the inquiry their consultation was: “at best flawed, and in some respects duplicitous.”

And in a stinging put-down, he dismissed claims of widespread community engagement as “pure bunkum.”

Dr Jubb went further — alleging Rockwell pumped out bogus newsletters and orchestrated pro-forma responses to sway planners.

Dr Michael Jubb of the Battersea Society ©Photo Rob McGibbon for The Chelsea Citizen

“We have never seen anything like it in Battersea,” he thundered. “I hope we never have to deal with such a shameful and deceitful campaign that made people very angry.”

But the gloves came off when Rockwell’s barrister, Russell Harris KC, demanded he apologise. Dr Jubb refused — point blank.

“I will not withdraw from calling the campaign deceitful,” he shot back.

A heavyweight in planning circles, Dr Jubb, who has worked within the Battersea community for 50 years, said he was speaking for more than a thousand furious locals.

“They rejoiced when the Council refused the application,” he said. “They are dismayed by the appeal and the need to hold this inquiry.”

He followed up with a devastating broadside. “I have never seen such anger about a planning application,” he said. “The degree and scope of the animosity is completely unprecedented.”

Russell Harris KC, Rockwell’s lead counsel  ©Photo Rob McGibbon for The Chelsea Citizen

He then reeled off a barrage of words used by residents to describe the tower in letters of objection. “Grotesque, hideous, ghastly, ridiculous, ludicrous, horrific, outrageous, monstrous, disastrous, disgusting, obscene…”

Then added: “It’s almost a relief to come across other equally damaging words — embarrassing, laughable, heartbreaking, or just totally wrong.”

And he warned developers not to dismiss locals as Nimbys: “They need to ask themselves why this particular building has given rise to so much anger.”

The scheme — called One Battersea Bridge by Rockwell’s architects Farrells — was thrown out by Wandsworth Council last year over its height and impact, following a groundswell of opposition from residents in Battersea and Chelsea and beyond.

But Rockwell has been fighting back. Earlier on Day Three, sparks flew as the council’s key witness, urban design officer Ben Eley, was grilled by Harris.

The barrister accused him of exaggerating the tower’s visual harm, but Eley stood firm. “It would be a prominent intrusion,” he said, “detracting from the park’s pre-eminent secluded nature and its sense of being ‘set apart’ from the city.”

Harris hit back, pointing to Historic England and City Hall assessments rating the impact as “low to medium.”

Both sides agreed on one thing — the final call rests with planning inspector Joanna Gilbert.

 The inquiry continues