The controversial Battersea tower development designed by the prestigious architecture firm Farrells is heading to appeal after the Planning Inspectorate agreed to review the case. Developer Rockwell has formally challenged the London Borough of Wandsworth's decision to reject the ambitious residential project, which would replace a dated 1980s office building along the River Thames. Planning Inspector Joanna Gilbert has been assigned to oversee the appeal process, which could reverse the council's April 2025 refusal. The appeal represents a critical test of London's ability to balance desperate housing needs with heritage preservation concerns.
The proposed development has undergone significant revisions since its initial submission, reflecting efforts to address community concerns. Farrells originally envisioned a striking 39-story tower that would dramatically alter the Battersea skyline, but subsequently reduced the height by ten floors to a more modest 29 stories. The revised plans also include a complementary ten-story shoulder block featuring a communal rooftop garden designed to provide green space for residents. Despite these concessions, the project would still deliver more than 50 homes designated for social rent, representing 50 percent affordable housing by habitable room—a ratio that exceeds many comparable developments in the area.
Heritage organizations have mounted strong opposition to the scheme, citing its potential damage to numerous protected sites. Historic England formally objected to what it described as a visually intrusive and incongruous addition to the established townscape, arguing the tower would compromise views of five separate conservation areas. The Grade II-listed Albert Bridge and Battersea Bridge would be particularly affected, with planners warning that the structure would dominate views from Hyde Park and impact the setting of the Grade I-listed St. Mary's Church, the Royal Hospital Chelsea, and Battersea Park. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea joined the chorus of criticism, calling the design discordant, dominating, and oppressive.
Community resistance to the project has been organized and passionate, attracting high-profile support and thousands of participants. A petition against the development gathered more than 5,000 signatures, while the council received over 2,000 formal objections from concerned residents. Among the most notable opponents is rock legend Mick Jagger, who reportedly backed the campaign to stop the tower. Local activists argue that the development prioritizes profit over community character and would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment along the Thames. They contend that even the reduced height remains inappropriate for the sensitive riverside location.
Rockwell's managing director Nicholas Mee expressed disappointment at the council's decision, emphasizing the project's potential benefits for London's housing crisis. He highlighted that the scheme would provide much-needed affordable social rented homes alongside affordable workspace and a free-to-access community hub operated by local charities. Mee pointed to the 1,900 letters of support the project received as evidence of community backing. He argued that the development would transform an underused site and replace the obsolete Michael Lyell Associates Glassmills office block with modern, sustainable housing. The developer maintains that if London is to meet its ambitious housing targets, sustainable developments in well-connected locations like Battersea must move forward without protracted appeals.
The appeal process will likely focus on whether the public benefits of increased housing supply outweigh the heritage harm identified by opponents. Inspector Gilbert will review evidence from both sides, potentially including public hearings where experts can testify about the development's impact. The decision could have far-reaching implications for other controversial tower proposals across London, particularly in heritage-sensitive areas. Farrells has declined to comment pending the appeal, but architecture watchers are closely monitoring the case as an indicator of how planning authorities will navigate the tension between development pressure and conservation priorities in one of Europe's most historically rich cities.
