First, councillors refused gambling operator Silvertime’s application to open a 40-machine slot and bingo venue, plus two flats on upper floors, opposite Earl’s Court Underground station. The decision followed this week’s protest on Earl’s Court Road attended by residents and campaigners, including Bianca Jagger and MP Joe Powell.

Objectors argued the proposal — to convert the disused Lloyd’s bank — would draw vulnerable people into an area already under pressure, citing nearby schools, rehab’ facilities and existing crime concerns.

The Planning Applications committee meeting at the Town Hall ©RM/TCC

Councillors were blunt in their assessment. Cllr Hamish Adourian (Con/Earls Court) described the scheme as an “appalling application” and said the local view was “absolutely clear – the answer is NO”.

Cllr Linda Wade (LibDem/Earls Court) said it would “fail to support high street vitality and undermine the development of new businesses,” warning it risked creating a concentration of gambling premises within a short stretch of the Earl’s Court Village Conservation Area.

Cllr Gerard Hargreaves (Con/Riverside) added: “This is not just about planning, anti-social behaviour, the size of the shop front, gambling, it’s about all those things together meaning this development is not fit for this area. It has the whole package of issues.”

Residents reinforced those concerns. Francesco Zibellini, chair of the Earl’s Court Society, accused the company of targeting “young and vulnerable individuals” by relocating to a larger site.

For Silvertime, Andrew Woods, argued the new venue would create jobs and that customers would “get the benefit” of an improved facility — notably the restoration of the exterior of the Lloyd’s building. His remarks prompted ripples of laughter from the public gallery.

Earl’s Court residents cheered when Silvertime’s application was dismissed ©RM/TCC

When planning chair Cllr James Husband confirmed the refusal in line with officers’ recommendations, the gallery – a crowd of around 40 – at the rear of the council chamber broke into loud and sustained applause and cheers.

Asked afterwards whether Silvertime would appeal, Mr Woods declined to comment, but assured The Citizen that he would inform us if the company decided to appeal the decision.

Earlier in the week, Council leader Elizabeth Campbell (Con/Royal Hospital) had pledged to protestors that RBKC would be prepared to defend any legal appeal “100%” – despite wider financial pressures currently facing the Council.

The committee then turned to a very different — but long-running — case in Ifield Road, SW10.

Residents there have spent years complaining about the condition of a property owned by former Conservative councillor Nicholas Halbritter. Among the issues cited were extensive Japanese knotweed growth exceeding 12 feet, vermin, persistent water leaks, and foxes occupying parts of the building.

Ifield Road residents Nik Hoexter and Christine Hastings after the committee’s ruling ©RM/TCC

Frustration was directed not only at the owner but at the council’s handling of the case. Neighbour Nik Hoexter – flanked by another despairing resident, Christine Hastings – told councillors: “The man’s a menace.”

He added: “We have spent so long trying to get action. During tortuous complaints we have even had to go to the Information Commissioner to get the damning evidence used in court.”

Planning chair Cllr Husband acknowledged what he termed “masterful inactivity” on behalf of the Council and indicated that further enforcement action was now warranted.

Council officer Julia Drzewicka confirmed a new Section 215 notice could be served. If ignored, the council would have the power to step in and carry out the works itself. Mr Hoexter, however, criticised the officer’s report as “disgraceful and directly dishonest”.

The committee voted unanimously to issue a new Section 215 Notice, which means Mr Halbritter will be duty bound to complete works to restore his house to reasonable order. However, a similar notice was issued in 2016 – followed by court action – but he ignored all enforcement efforts.

Following the hearing, Mr Hoexter accepted that the residents were back where they were in 2016 and added: “We’re not optimistic that anything will be different this time. Unless the Council is prepared to use real powers rather than notional ones, he won’t give a damn.”

Local MP Ben Coleman, who attended the hearing to support the Ifield Road residents, also urged decisive action: “The only thing that I think will be satisfactory is if the Council then goes further if he (Halbritter) refuses to take action – and goes in there and clears it up. I am going to stick with the residents through this. Thick and thin.”

Both decisions mark significant moments for residents — but, as several residents made clear, the real test will be what happens next. What happens if Silvertime appeals? And what next for Ifield Road if Mr Halbritter fails to comply with the 215 Notice – again?

The Citizen will be covering these two stories, every step of the way.

Firebrand Jagger joined a noisy street protest outside gambling firm Silvertime Amusements’ proposed new venue — a shuttered Lloyds Bank site in Hogarth Road just yards across from the station.

The propose site will be ten times to space of SilverTime’s existing shop a few yards away

And the stakes could not be higher.

A crunch RBKC planning meeting this Thursday is expected to reject the scheme — but insiders say Silvertime are already poised to appeal, triggering a legal showdown that could cost both the firm and the Council a fortune.

Ms Jagger didn’t hold back. “They will hire some of the most efficient and powerful lawyers to fight for an appeal and we should continue to ask the Council to deny approval,” she told The Citizen.

And it seems she has a powerful backer. Council leader Elizabeth Campbell joined the protesters and vowed that RBKC would dig deep to fight any appeal.

When challenged by The Citizen if she would pledge to back campaigners all the way, no matter the legal costs, she declared: “Yes we’re ready to pay the money – 100 per cent.” Protesters surrounding her cheered audibly when they heard Ms Campbell’s unequivocal statement.

The protest kicked off at 6pm under heavy skies and a chill breeze, with more than 80 residents packing into Hogarth Road in a show of force.

Commuters spilling out of Earl’s Court station were met by a wall of banners screaming: “Don’t let gambling take over our high street” and “Stop Silvertime expansion” — while passing drivers blasted their horns in support.

At the heart of the fury? Fears the new venue — reportedly a £11 million investment bet already laid by Silvertime — will supercharge antisocial behaviour in the area and turn it into a “gambling hub”.

Silvertime operates just doors away and plans to shut that site before opening the new one, which represents many times the exterior shopfront space and a branding beacon for the company. Silvertime, which is a £20m-a-year business, already has many Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs) across the country.

Ms Jagger and Citizen editor Rob McGibbon with the purposed site in the background

But critics say this is no simple swap. Jagger warned the venue would “exploit” children, fuel crime and blight streets already home to vulnerable residents and rehab’ centres.

“Children will be tempted to come here and that’s my main concern,” she said. “They are trying to lure them and other vulnerable people.”

‘SilverTime’ – the existing shop ids a short disgrace from the old Lloyds bank 

Locals echoed her anger. Earl’s Court Society vice-chair Sandra Yarwood blasted the plans: “We don’t want it — a gambling arcade here with its massive frontage right opposite the station, open 24 hours a day.”

Resident Sherry Kernan fumed: “I’ve lived here for 25 years and we already have two racing parlours (betting shops), two gaming parlours (AGCs) — and now they want a huge den of iniquity. We’re not having it.”

Neighbour David Christopherson added: “This is a residential area… a round-the-clock licence is totally unacceptable.”

Labour MP Joe Powell warned the fight may not end soon. “They will come back again, and again and again until they get their way,” he told the crowd — revealing plans to push Parliament to toughen gambling laws through new “cumulative impact” rules.

“So what we’re going to do next week is amend the Devolution bill, which we will be voting on in Parliament next week to include something called gambling, cumulative impact assessments.

“Now, I know that sounds very tedious, but it is a tool that we can then use to make sure that we have a stronger chance of rejecting these applications in the first place.”

In the thick of it – reporter John Cookson listens to Ms Jagger

Ward councillor Linda Wade delivered a blunt verdict: the casino “simply must be stopped.”

Silvertime, who have been asked for comment on last night’s protest, have insisted critics have it wrong. The firm says it’s merely relocating — not expanding — its long-standing Earl’s Court operation, which has run for years without reported trouble.

The new site, they argue, will still be “below average” in size, tightly regulated, and limited to ground-floor gambling only — with upper floors turned into housing.

Their bottom line? This is a “straightforward” move — not the birth of a new gambling hotspot. 

But on the streets of Earl’s Court, residents aren’t buying it. And with a planning showdown on the horizon — and a costly appeal looming — this battle is only just getting started. All bets are off on who will win.

Since The Citizen aired the serious unease felt amongst residents in a story last month, the housing association charity has pledged to fast-track a solution — but has admitted that the problems are so extensive that it will take at least a year to solve.

Families have already endured four long years of relentless noisy works and have been trapped behind scaffolding and netting that has cast their homes into daytime darkness.

Peabody has finally conceded the works have taken “much longer than expected” and have promised a full-scale push, with contractors to be deployed inside and outside the building, as well as across multiple floors, at the same time to finish the job more quickly. But even that means the works will not be finished until “sometime in 2027”.

In a statement to The Citizen, Peabody said: “We’re very sorry that this has taken much longer than expected and for the impact this has had on residents. We know how difficult it is to live with this level of disruption, and we don’t underestimate how challenging it has been.

“This work is essential to make sure residents’ homes are safe and meet the latest standards. When we removed the cladding, we uncovered additional issues within the building. This has happened across the sector, as some problems only become visible once work begins. Where this happens, we make sure everything is fully put right so homes are safe.

“We’re continuing to stay in close contact with residents and will share clearer timescales as soon as we can. We’re focused on finishing this as quickly as possible, while making sure it is done properly and to the highest safety standards, and continuing to support residents throughout.”

The state of Kingsgate House on the King’s Road as photographed last Friday ©TCC

Sadly for residents, this statement echoes a familiar refrain. “Too little, too late,” is the verdict from inside the block.

Originally launched in 2020 to strip out dangerous cladding in the wake of Grenfell Tower fire, the repair project has spiralled into a catalogue of defects.

Kingsgate House is a mix of shared ownership and social rent flats that was built in 2014 as part of a Section 106 “trade off” for the construction of a luxury block of flats overlooking Kensington Park Gardens. It was supposed to be a modern success story, but once the cladding came off, a Pandora’s box of problems emerged.

Peabody admits the works uncovered serious hidden defects, including rainwater damage to the timber frame — forcing a complete rebuild of the top two floors and even the re-housing of residents to other rental accommodation. Other issues at Kingsgate House include: faulty, untreated wooden balconies, leaks through windows and bathrooms, persistent heating and hot water failures, and – arguably, worst of all – a lift outage of seven months, leaving wheelchair users trapped in their homes. 

Residents point the finger squarely at poor original construction — and question how the building ever passed inspection. “I used to be proud to live here,” said one. “Now it’s in a sorry state — and it’s not clear if it will ever be put right.”

There’s one bright note amid the gloom: Peabody says insurance premiums won’t rise further because of the works — and has pledged refunds for excess communal electricity charges. Peabody also insists fire safety checks have been completed and that homes are safe. That will come as cold comfort to residents battered by disruption — and soaring bills.

To add to their misery service charges have nearly doubled in four years, rocketing from £222 to £418 per month, driven largely by unexplained hikes in insurance and electricity costs. Then there’s the mystery of the building’s distinctive solar power panels that were once lauded as a great innovation and an environmentally friendly design. Residents claim that they have never seen a penny’s worth of energy from these “photovoltaic panels”. 

Peabody has admitted to The Citizen that the panels do not currently work and promises they will be fixed when the project ends. Notably, Peabody would not confirm the net energy value deemed from the panels since they were installed – or indeed if they have ever worked.

In the meantime, life goes on in limbo. “It’s like living on a building site,” said one resident. “The noise, the mess, the disturbance, the lack of security… the uncertainty.” Another added: “We can’t open windows properly or use our balconies. We live in darkness.”

Patience is running out. “They pretend to care,” said one furious tenant. “We are exhausted. It’s a never-ending nightmare.”

Angry families are now forming a residents’ association to demand answers— including clear schedules, proper communication, quarterly meetings and fully itemised service charges.

The Chelsea Citizen today pledges to stay on this story — until the last scaffolding pole comes down and the energy flows from those fancy solar panels.

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

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

Transport for London has approved a sweeping, multi-million pound redevelopment for South Kensington Station, clearing the way for lifts, rebuilt platforms and a revamped concourse at the heart of the capital’s museum quarter.

TfL says the project will finally drag the Victorian-era station into the 21st century, delivering long-promised step-free access and modern facilities for millions of passengers.

But when The Citizen asked residents using the station what they thought, the verdict was swift — and savage.

“Anything that draws more visitors is very bad,” said Rita Charlton, 61, who lives nearby. “It’s already chaos at the weekends. This will just make it worse.”

The plans had been warmly welcomed by senior politicians, with council leaders hailing the move as a long-overdue breakthrough.

Royal Borough Tory leader Cllr. Elizabeth Campbell said: “Making South Kensington Station step-free has been a key priority of mine since I became Leader. I am delighted to say that it’s one step closer to becoming a reality.

“This will mean a revamped station concourse and step-free access to all lines. South Kensington is an internationally important station and this Council is creating something that matches that status.”

And Labour MP for Kensington and Bayswater Joe Powell also lined up behind the scheme, pointing to hard numbers. “South Kensington is London’s 13th-busiest station, with around 30 million passengers a year,” he said. “TfL estimates another 500,000 journeys are lost annually because it isn’t step-free.

“This isn’t just a local issue — upgrading the station benefits the whole country.”

Despite the political fanfare, residents told a different story.

In The Citizen’s (less-than scientific) poll of ten locals in the station concourse, not one backed the scheme.

“You won’t find anyone around here who thinks it’s a good idea,” said Chris Finnegan, 32, a City worker who lives in Thurloe Place. “The station is already overcrowded. We don’t want even more people funnelled through it.”

TfL insists the station’s historic character will be protected and that all work will follow strict planning rules.

But angry Marsden Hospital patient Margaret Huff, 52, added: “Oh what a shame. We should be preserving our old stations — not ripping them apart.”

At the heart of the project are new lifts from street to platform, refurbished tunnels, brighter lighting, clearer signage and upgraded safety systems. Engineers will also tackle infrastructure that dates back more than 150 years.

Above ground, TfL has also approved changes that could include new retail or commercial units — helping pay for the works, but fuelling fears of over-development.

No start date has been confirmed, but once contracts are signed passengers are warned to expect years of phased disruption, with the station kept open when possible.

For TfL, the message is clear: South Kensington Station will get its makeover — whether locals like it or not.

And for the millions who battle the stairs every year, however, it can’t come soon enough.

Wandsworth Council threw out Rockwell’s plans for a tower of mostly luxury apartments last year, branding it “grossly unacceptable” and warning that it flew in the face of its planning policy. Officers added that the scale of the scheme would devastate the area, as well as the lives of residents.

Now Rockwell is taking its case to the government’s Planning Inspectorate, triggering a full public inquiry — and reigniting one of south-west London’s fiercest planning battles.

The proposed tower would loom over Battersea and Chelsea and “scar” the riverside vista ©Farells/Rockwell

The campaign against what has become known as the “toxic tower” has drawn heavyweight backing. A petition led by The Chelsea Citizen’s editor Rob McGibbon attracted more than 5,000 signatures, with support from celebrities including Sir Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton, Felicity Kendal, Harry Hill and Lord Browne of Madingley. The involvement of such a glittering array of stars led to widespread media coverage across the national press.

After hearing of Rockwell’s appeal, Chelsea resident Mr McGibbon said: “It is hugely disappointing that Rockwell has launched this appeal. It will cause great expense for Wandsworth Council and the government – money that could go to better use in the community. A fortune will be spent on legal advice to fight this appeal and the council is even having to post out thousands of letters telling people about this hearing.

“Wandsworth’s planning committee, its officers, multiple distinguished groups and thousands of residents clearly explained why this tower is totally unacceptable. It is the wrong scheme, in the wrong area, and yet this company has dismissed all the evidence and criticism to forge ahead. It’s as if they think that they are beyond any rules.

“Regardless of the time and effort it will take to fight this appeal, our campaign goes on and we intend to win.”

Ben Coleman, MP for Chelsea and Fulham, also weighed in against the scheme. He said: “I hope the Planning Inspectorate upholds the unanimous decision by Wandsworth Council to reject the scheme.”

Rockwell lodged appeal just days before the expiration date and a hearing will begin at 10am on 17th March at Wandsworth Town Hall. It will last EIGHT DAYS at huge expense to the public purse and will be chaired by Inspector Joanna Gilbert.

The controversial proposal would see the 1980s six-storey Glassmill office block bulldozed and replaced with a 29-floor block of flats and a extensive “shoulder” building rising to ten storeys. Both would loom over Battersea and Chelsea.

Residents have voiced fury over the tower’s scale, warning it would overwhelm a constrained site, clog local roads and scar the skyline. They also fear that the construction phase could damage Battersea Bridge itself and the river wall, as well as cause traffic chaos for five years at one of London’s busiest and most vital bridges. It is not even clear who would foot the bill if any damage is done to the Grade Two listed bridge during construction.

Under planning rules, objectors who have already lodged comments with Wandsworth Council do not need to re-register. However, campaigners are urging residents to speak up again and file fresh objections to ensure that they are heard. People who support the tower can also post their views.

Comments should be filed to the government portal HERE – citing the reference number 6002127 – by midnight on 27th January.

Interested parties can also apply for what is known as “Rule 6 Status”, which allows people or groups to give evidence at the inquiry and cross examine others. Full details on how to request Rule 6 Status are HERE.

Rockwell say that the scheme will deliver 110 flats, including 54 “affordable” homes, plus workspace, a restaurant and a community hub. Wandsworth’s planning committee noted the Rockwell offered no guarantee that the affordable housing would be delivered, as completion hinged on future viability tests. They added the tower would make only a modest dent in Wandsworth’s housing needs. During the planning application phase, it was also revealed that Rockwell’s flats for social rent would be subsidised by the GLA to the tune of £470,000 per unit.

Council officers also pointed out the site sits in a mid-rise zone under the borough’s Local Plan, where six storeys is the maximum height allowable. Labour councillors Jessica Lee and Jamie Colclough said residents wanted to send a “loud and clear message” that profit-driven schemes ignoring local character “aren’t welcome in Battersea”. Conservative councillor Ravi Govindia dismissed the plans as “grossly unacceptable.” The decision to refuse permission was later backed by the Greater London Authority, which ruled there were no planning reasons to cause intervention by the Mayor.

Regardless of the weight and breadth of opposition to the design, Rockwell is digging in for a full-scale fight that will be led by KCs and high powered legal teams on all sides. In a statement to The Citizen, Managing Director Nicholas Mee said: “It is very disappointing Wandsworth Council refused to support this great opportunity for high-quality homes, designed by the world-renowned architects, Farrells. This brownfield regeneration project includes 50% much-needed affordable social rented homes that exceeds Wandsworth’s adopted policy targets. 

“The plans would transform an underused site and replace a building no longer fit for purpose. If London is to meet its housing targets, developments in sustainable locations like this (which attracted 1,900 letters of support) need to be granted without having to go through lengthy appeals.”

Critics have repeatedly questioned the credibility of Rockwell’s letters of support. Following an investigation by The Citizen, it was revealed that many – if not all – of the letters were submitted by an agency paid by Rockwell which had despatched canvassers to, predominantly, the Battersea area to solicit signatures.

It is claimed that many people who “signed” were not actually given clear and explicit details of the project that they were supposed to be backing. Many people were also enticed to sign via direct email, or adverts on social media platforms. This may explain why countless “supporters” hail from addresses far across the UK – such as Hull – who will clearly have no direct knowledge of the Battersea area. As part of its obligations to the appeal process, the council has been posting letters, at huge expense, to everyone who registered a comment. This applies to the 1,900 “supporters” scattered across Britain that were submitted by Rockwell’s canvasing company.

The planning inquiry will see a dramatic showdown between developers and Wandsworth Council, which has vowed to fight the appeal robustly. Council Leader Cllr Simon Hogg, said: “The Planning Committee were unanimous about the harms of a 29-storey tower in this location, in breach of Wandsworth’s Local Plan which sets out acceptable heights for the area. The Council will robustly defend the decision to refuse planning permission at the upcoming Public Inquiry in March.”

The Friends of Battersea Riverside group also fought strongly against the application and its members have vowed to do whatever they can to ensure the development is rejected. In a statement, a spokesman said:  

“Six months ago, at planning committee, Wandsworth Council refused Rockwell’s application for The Glassmill. This was not a marginal decision. It was unanimous. Not a single vote was cast in favour of this unnecessary building which, if built, would contravene planning guidelines. Rockwell clearly believe these rules are irrelevant and not applicable to them.

“The consequence of this is that Wandsworth CC will now be forced to defend this appeal, a process that will cost the taxpayers huge amounts of money, money that should be spent on public services to the benefit of local residents. Rockwell, however, clearly has no social conscience and will use the best legal team that money can buy to try to win a battle that benefits no one but themselves, all funded by an American hedge fund which does not give a damn about the damage this development will do to a community that fought to prevent it.

“We are appalled that Rockwell is prepared to show total disregard for the democratic process that produced an unambiguous refusal for a development for which there is no support.  We will do everything in our power to support the Council in its fight to defeat this appeal and show Rockwell that money alone should not be allowed to abuse the will of the public.”

Other news coverage on this story…

Daily Telegraph broke the appeal story on 22nd December 2025

The initiative is part of the council’s ‘Amazing Spaces’ streetscape improvement programme, which aims to create more attractive and welcoming public places.

Under the plan, Stratford Road, which is known as a quaint street that is full of character with neighbourhood shops and businesses, would become one-way westbound between Marloes Road and Allen Street, while Radley Mews and Blithfield Street would remain two-way.

Map of the proposed changes © RBKC

One of the key proposals is to widen footways to improve pedestrian movement and create additional space for outdoor dining and planting.

The plans include upgrading footways, carriageways, and kerb lines with high-quality natural stone, although the council notes that the specific stone type will be determined at a later stage, depending on public support for the scheme.

Stratford Road dissects Kensington East-to-West

Changes to traffic and parking arrangements are also being considered. The concept proposes introducing parking bays and a dedicated loading area.

The plans also include improved dropped-kerb crossings and a raised junction at Marloes Road to make it safer for pedestrians to cross.

The Devonshire Arms pub, Stratford Street © Ewan Munro

The council is inviting residents to share their views on the proposed changes and says the feedback will help shape the final design and determine whether the scheme moves ahead. The public consultation is open until 18th January.

For further information, residents can email stratfordroad@rbkc.gov.uk.

Visit here for the proposals: https://consult.rbkc.gov.uk/communities/stratford-road/

RBKC’s reasons for proposing the changes

The long-awaited regeneration scheme will sweep away several much-loved, but outdated Victorian commercial buildings – including the popular former Lots Road Auctions warehouse – and replace them with new homes, community facilities, and workspaces.

Developer Mount Anvil will deliver 156 private homes, alongside 53 homes for social rent and 65 extra-care flats, also for social rent, aimed at helping older residents live independently.

The specialist care homes are designed for people over 55 who already receive home care, allowing them to live in their own flats with 24/7 on-site support available when needed — a model the council says will help residents stay rooted in their community.

RBKC says the scheme is a key plank of its ambitious new homes delivery programme, which aims to build 600 homes across the borough, with 300 for social rent and key workers. 

Lots Road South alone will deliver a significant chunk of that total, with the council purchasing the affordable homes, workspace and new community centre. The development will include 2,038 square metres of non-residential space.

Greenery, the developers say, is a central feature of the project, with a new community square, nearly 50 new trees, and biodiverse green roofs across the site.

During the debate, Chelsea Riverside councillor Laura Burns (Con) warned the Lots Road scheme could bring traffic chaos to locals’ doorsteps. She told the chamber that residents were deeply worried about construction lorries, noise and day-to-day disruption — and demanded a strict traffic management plan be nailed down before planning permission was signed off.

Mount Anvil’s representatives claimed they have a “strong track record” of controlling construction traffic and working closely with neighbours to minimise disruption during major builds.

Rounding off the debate Planning Committee Chairman James Husband (Con) said “the need for new housing in the Borough was urgent and that tips the balance in making a decision.”

Councillors unanimously approved the scheme, subject to residents and developers agreeing rules on demolition and traffic management. 

Mount Anvil’s Marcus Bate told The Chelsea Citizen that the development would deliver 45% affordable homes and almost half of the council’s housing target. “We’re keen to get on site by the end of March to create a new neighbourhood that residents of all ages will be proud to call home.”

Richard Jacques, Chair of the Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum, has followed the consultation and planning process meticulously for years, spoke against aspects of the plan at last night’s meeting. In a statement later, he hit back at the granting of planning permission:

“It is bitterly disappointing that RBKC Councillors and planning officers have yet again favoured vested interests over the concerns of those who live and work in our area. While we can be proud that community pressure has achieved significant changes to the original scheme proposed by Mount Anvil, this is a missed opportunity to create a development we could all be happy with. 

“It is a tiny consolation, but at least the Planning Committee accepted our argument that the Demolition and Construction Management Plans must return to the Committee if Mount Anvil and the Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum cannot reach an agreement on how to manage the development’s construction phase. 

“Our focus must now shift to the construction Lots Road South and how we can minimise the inevitable disruption that yet another major building project in our area will cause to this conservation area.”

It was noted at the meeting that representatives from Heatherlys School of Fine Art and from the Chelsea Academy spoke up in favour of the development. Both of these Lots Road institutions have recently received funds from Mount Anvil’s social action fund.

Part of the development falls within the boundary of Hammersmith and Fulham Council and still needs its approval, but the future of Lots Road South has finally been decided.

Cllr Emma Will, lead member for property, said: “Securing planning approval for Lots Road South means we can move forward with delivering high-quality homes, including much-needed extra care housing for our residents – creating yet another amazing space in our borough. This development will make a real difference to people’s lives and to the local community.

“As a result of this scheme, there is quite understandably some concern over the level of disruption during construction and the longer-term impact to residents. We have been working hard with Mount Anvil to ensure we have captured residents’ feedback and have adapted the designs to take into account these comments throughout the process. We will continue to work closely with residents and local community groups as the scheme progresses to do all we can to minimise disruption. We cannot forget that London is in the middle of a housing crisis and this development will help many residents secure a safe and affordable home.”