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

Occupiers of apartments in Albion Riverside and Thames Walk said that the new building would cast significant shadow, as well as wipe out precious views of the river. 

On Day Two of the public inquiry into Rockwell Property’s planning application for what is known as One Battersea Bridge, it was also revealed that people living in the Peabody Trust’s flats at 6 Hester Road – a block immediately behind the tower – would have their high-level outside garden totally overlooked by the new tower, leaving it devoid of direct sun all day.

Giving evidence for the developer Rockwell, planning consultant Jonathan Marginson rejected concerns over “access to light”, telling the inquiry there would be “no harm — and if there was, the level would be low”.

A “round table” meeting during the inquiry. To gain a seat in such a discussion costs £75,000 in legal fees

He also dismissed objections over privacy, arguing that nearby offices already overlook properties such as 6 Hester Road, and that the proposed tower would not materially worsen the situation.

The inspector, Joanna Gilbert, questioned the impact of construction traffic on Battersea Bridge, a route already prone to congestion. She raised the possibility of additional strain on the structure, as well as disruption to local traffic should the appeal succeed.

Mr Marginson responded that there was “no evidence” of structural risk and said that Transport for London had not lodged any objection to the scheme. This assertion had been challenged by a submission on a previous day because TFL’s lack of objection had been made long before Albert Bridge had been closed and, therefore, might be subject to change given the current traffic situation.

Away from the formal evidence, residents expressed frustration at the cost of participating in the inquiry. Amanda Hendricks, chair of the Thames Walk Residents’ Association, said her group had been unable to secure representation.

“It was going to cost us £75,000 in fees just to be heard,” she said. “It’s totally wrong.”

Mr Ben Eley, Wandsworth council’s conservation and urban design officer, before giving evidence

In the afternoon session, Wandsworth council’s conservation and urban design officer, Ben Eley, was cross-examined by Rockwell’s lead legal representative Russell Harris KC. The clash was often testy and ill-tempered and drew audible reactions from the public gallery.

Mr Harris disputed the council’s characterisation of the area around the proposed tower site as predominantly “low-rise”, pointing to nearby developments such as Albion Riverside, which is 11 storeys high.  

Mr Eley defended the authority’s decision to refuse planning permission. He noted that the site falls within a mid-rise designation in the borough’s local plan, where buildings of around six storeys are considered appropriate.

A tower of the scale proposed, he said, would cause “acute, substantial and harmful” effects, including on views of the River Thames from multiple angles, not least along Chelsea Embankment – all the way from Chelsea Bridge to Cremorne Gardens. He said that the tower would adversely affect the “kinetic experience” of people walking from Chelsea Bridge.

Mr Eley acknowledged the presence of taller buildings nearby, including the 20-storey Montevetro tower and the 35-storey Tower West at Chelsea Waterfront on the north side of the river and said that such developments detracted from the area’s character. His assessment, he added, was consistent with the positions of Historic England and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Mr Harris, in white shirt, grills Mr Eley in an often ill-tempered cross-examination ©Photo Rob McGibbon (visible on TV screen – who was (rightly!) reprimanded for taking this photo)

Mr Harris described the One Battersea Bridge proposal as a “landmark” development. In response, Mr Eley cited Historic England’s guidance that “not all tall buildings are landmarks and not all landmarks are tall”.

Challenging that position, Mr Harris argued that the scheme should be judged in the context of the wider townscape and that the existing Glassmill office building was out of date and needed replacing with a more coherent development. He said that there is an “opportunity to enhance the existing townscape experience”.

Mr Eley accepted that the current building appeared “forlorn”, but maintained that the proposed tower would be out of scale with its surroundings.

The inquiry continues 

Lawyers, planners, campaigners and residents lined up for the opening salvos in what promises to be an eight-day planning war over a scheme many fear will permanently scar one of south west London’s most historic riverfronts.

The development — known as One Battersea Bridge — was unanimously rejected by Wandsworth Council in April 2025 over its height, scale and impact on the character of the area.

Even before proceedings began – under the stern guidance of Inspector Joanna Gilbert – the scheme had drawn a roll-call of high-profile opposition.

Chelsea resident and Rolling Stones legend Sir Mick Jagger, 82, warned: “Another high tower in Battersea and Chelsea makes no sense and is wrong at every level.”

Inspector Joanna Gilbert

Actress Felicity Kendal, star of The Good Life, added: “The high rise is utterly monstrous and will wreck this part of Battersea.”

Their voices have echoed a wider groundswell of resistance from residents’ groups on both sides of the Thames led by The Chelsea Citizen. A petition set up by its editor Rob McGibbon in June 2024 attracted more than 5,000 signatures. But Rockwell is fighting back — and fighting hard.

Opening the case for the developers, Russell Harris KC set out a robust defence of the scheme, insisting it should be approved.

Russell Harris KC representing Rockwell Property

He reminded the inquiry the project would deliver around 100 new homes — half of them designated as socially affordable rents.

Framing the issue in stark terms, he said London faced an acute housing crisis and argued that: “a grant of permission for this proposal… would provide a clear signal the planning system is taking its role in promoting economic growth, confidence and the provision of housing and affordable housing.”

He also argued the tower would improve the area — describing it as a “landmark” building first conceived by the late, celebrated architect Sir Terry Farrell.

Far from harmful, he said, the design would enhance Battersea Bridge — calling the proposed structure simply: “elegant.”

But the council struck back. 

Douglas Edwards KC, representing Wandsworth, told the inquiry the scheme flies in the face of local planning policy.

Douglas Edwards KC representing Wandsworth Council

The site sits firmly within a designated mid-rise zone, where buildings should reach no higher than six storeys — roughly 18 metres.

Rockwell’s tower would soar to more than four times that height.

“The proposed development is simply too high,” he said.

He warned it would create a “sharp and discordant relationship” with its surroundings and cause substantial harm “both localised and over a wide distance.”

While acknowledging the pressing need for housing, he concluded: “On the required balance, these benefits taken as a whole do not justify the harm caused or outweigh the statutory presumption arising from development plan conflict.”

Rockwell, however, countered that the Local Plan is out of date and should not be treated as a barrier to tall buildings. In fact, Wandsworth’s Local Plan was only rubber stamped in July 2023.

When the barristers sat down, it was the turn of local voices — and emotions ran high.

Speaking on behalf of a coalition including the Battersea Society, Chelsea Society, Wandsworth Society, Cheyne Walk Trust and Friends of Battersea Park, William Walton delivered a clear message: the tower breaks the rules.

William Walton representing the Civic Societies

He said it would be: “too large, too great in mass and too high for the site’s footprint.”

Resident Sir Christopher Edwards, who lives in the Thames Walk block of apartments that would share a party wall with the new development, warned of inevitable traffic congestion, adding: “We’re not objecting to the building — it’s just in the wrong place.”

Cheyne Walk Trust chairman Colonel David Waddell raised concerns about the impact of height and light pollution, saying the harm would be severe.

Another local resident, Nelson Riddle, questioned the very purpose of the scheme: “The question is why — what does it do to enhance the community? Why such a huge building? It is very difficult to see a common answer.”

Three members of the public spoke in favour of Rockwell’s tower, including Clapham resident Mark Littlewood, who made a “heartfelt plea” for the development to go ahead.

The afternoon session saw Rockwell unveil its star witness — architect Peter Barbalov of Farrells, a key figure behind the design originally conceived by Sir Terry Farrell.

Using a series of AI-generated images showing views from both sides of the Thames, Barbalov argued the tower would sit comfortably within a growing pattern of tall buildings along the river.

He said the scheme would help complete the regeneration of the Ransome’s Dock area — once industrial, now transformed into what he described as a “creative district” of high-end homes and commercial spaces.

At one point, tensions briefly spilled over when a member of the public gallery laughed during Barbalov’s presentation — prompting a swift rebuke from Inspector Gilbert. Barbalov will face cross-examination from the council’s KC later this week.

With eight days of evidence scheduled, today’s opening made one thing clear — this is a fight neither side is willing to lose.

At stake is not just a single tower — but the future shape of the Thames skyline in one of London’s most fiercely protected neighbourhoods.

The inquiry continues

Worth battling for: A view of Battersea Bridge on the evening after the first day of the inquiry

 All photos by Rob McGibbon      ©RobMcGibbon/TheChelseaCitizen

Councillor Tony Belton, chairman of the Planning Applications committee, also hit out at Rockwell Property for making the council spend more than half a million pounds defending its own unanimous decision to reject the 29-storey block of luxury flats on a historic stretch of river bank.

In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview with The Chelsea Citizen, Cllr Belton – who has more than 50 years of experience in local government – was also damning of Rockwell’s offer of affordable housing as the reason for allowing the development. Mr Belton, 84, dismissed it as the wrong type of accommodation and a ‘drop in the ocean’ in relation to the council’s needs. 

‘They have been very arrogant towards local people and incredibly arrogant to the residents living in the block [Thameswalk] that shares the party wall. They have not connected with them at all.    

‘The attitude of the developers is very interesting. They have always assumed that they were getting their plans through, regardless of what local people think. And local opinion has been unanimously against. That’s arrogance,’ he added. 

Councillor Tony Belton at home in Battersea                                ©Photo by Rob McGibbon for The Chelsea Citizen

 
Cllr Belton has been dismayed by the approach taken by Rockwell, the company owned by Monaco-based property tycoon, Donal Mulryan. The development proposals were thrown out by Wandsworth Council in April 2025. Conservative councillors even set aside their long-held differences with Labour to unite against the proposal.  

Cllr Belton added: ‘In all my years at the council, the Tories have opposed every single planning application that Labour has supported. On this occasion, however, they sided with Labour to reject the tower. So – Rockwell has at least succeeded in uniting the council!’

London Mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan also refused to overturn the decision, but Rockwell appealed to the Government, leaving the council no choice but to defend its decisions. An eight day public inquiry will open at Wandsworth town hall tomorrow morning. (17th March)

‘It is outrageous Rockwell do not recognise we could get charged for the costs of this appeal. Rockwell should be made to pay the costs of this crazy exercise.’

Fees for legal representation, including an expensive King’s Counsel, are believed to be in excess of £500,000, which – according to Cllr Belton – represents around one percent of the local authority’s council tax revenue. 

Belton explained that cash-strapped councils face difficult decisions every day and that the money being used for the public inquiry could be better used ‘for transport, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) kids, support for the elderly, or education’.

Mr Belton also explained how Rockwell’s 50 affordable housing units within its proposal would all be high up in a tower, which is impractical for families with young children.

‘As anywhere in London we have a pretty desperate housing need. There are 3,000 people on the housing waiting list in Wandsworth, so what Rockwell is proposing is a drop in the ocean.

‘Affordable housing at height is not a good option. Affordable housing by its very nature is inclined to house families with children that are not terribly well. Children in high rise buildings has never been a great idea. Mums and dads like to have their eye on their kids, especially when they are out at play, not 15 storeys up.’

Cllr Belton says that he believes the scale of the development is being driven by Rockwell paying too much for the Glassmill site. He also issued a warning about the future of Battersea Riverside if the appeal is successful, citing the stretch of river front, from Battersea Power Station to Cremorne railway bridge as being largely untouched by high rise. 

‘This will be destroyed,’ said Cllr Belton. ‘It changes the outlook from Chelsea, looking south, which should be protected.

“Rockwell clearly paid far too much for the site in the first place. I don’t know how much they spent, but they obviously need a very large development to justify their original expenditure. I don’t see why the community and Wandsworth should pay for their mistake.” 

Furthermore, Cllr Belton also expressed concern around the open-ended closure of Albert Bridge and the near-permanent existing road works in Battersea streets surrounding the Glassmill site. He believes any new construction work would bring the entire area to a standstill. 

‘Whilst Albert Bridge is closed, Battersea Bridge could not take the strain,’ said Cllr Belton.

‘Rockwell have made an enormous mistake. It would be better for everyone, if they gave up and accepted the whole community is against it. We do not want a building like this on our riverfront’. 

Rockwell Property issued this new image for its One Battersea Bridge proposal ©Rockwell

You can read the full article HERE