UPDATED Wandsworth Council is expected to reject a towering 29-storey development at the foot of Battersea Bridge tomorrow, following overwhelming public opposition and a damning assessment from its own planning officers.
The proposal, brought forward by developer Rockwell, would see the demolition of the six-storey Glassmill office block and the construction of a high-rise scheme dubbed One Battersea Bridge, delivering 110 flats—54 at social rent—as well as workspace and a community hub. But officers say the tower breaches the borough’s Local Plan by exceeding the six-storey limit for the area, designated as a mid-rise zone.
In their report [pdf] ahead of Thursday’s Planning Applications Committee meeting, officers concluded the development would “significantly harm” the spatial character of the riverside location and deliver only a “relatively modest” contribution to Wandsworth’s housing needs—just 5.6% of the borough’s annual target.
The looming rejection comes barely a month after the same council approved another 29-storey tower at the former gasworks site on Swandon Way, despite fierce community opposition and a breach of the area’s own planning guidance. That decision shocked many, with councillors defending it as a unique case involving long-vacant brownfield land, strong public transport links, and a more substantial housing contribution—620 homes in total, with 40% affordable.
The likely rejection of Glassmill Tower—just weeks after the council approved a development of the exact same size at the former gasworks site—has raised concerns about consistency and credibility in Wandsworth’s planning process. Both schemes breach local height guidelines, both sit on brownfield land, and both promise substantial affordable housing, yet only one has been backed.
Officers claim the Glassmill site is in a mid-rise zone and the tower would harm local character—concerns that were largely brushed aside for the gasworks development, which also faced fierce public opposition. This discrepancy has left many questioning whether decisions are being made on planning merit or swayed by personal views, influence and behind-the-scenes lobbying. If Wandsworth wanted to maintain public trust, it would explain why two near-identical skyscraper proposals have been being held to such different standards.
Objections to Glassmill
Over 1,920 objections to the Glassmill Tower have been logged on the council’s planning portal, with residents and campaigners warning the tower would overshadow nearby homes, clog up the busy Battersea Bridge junction, and permanently alter a cherished riverside view.
Speaking to Local Democracy Reporter Charlotte Lilywhite, resident Caroline Gardiner called the project a “slap in the face” for locals.
“Why are we being lumbered with a building that we don’t want, and that’s ruining the lives of the people who are already here?”
Rob McGibbon, editor of The Chelsea Citizen, launched a petition against the tower in June 2024, which now has almost 5,000 signatures. He slammed the scheme as “toxic,” adding:
“It’s the wrong project, in the wrong location, by the wrong developer. This project has disaster written all over it.”
McGibbon and others have also criticised Rockwell’s campaign to drum up support, accusing the developer of promoting template-based support letters via a third-party website that downplayed the building’s scale. Rockwell maintains that all support was gathered through standard industry practice and reflects “genuine backing.”
Nicholas Mee, Managing Director at Rockwell, defended the scheme in a statement to Lilywhite:
“This is an underused brownfield site that could deliver urgently needed affordable housing. Turning it down delays real solutions in favour of inaction.”
But with planning officers recommending refusal and public sentiment stacked against the project, few expect the proposal to survive the committee vote. If rejected, it could still be appealed—or amended for future consideration—but the backlash has made clear that One Battersea Bridge will not rise without a fight.
UPDATE: The Glassmill planning application was rejected by the council’s Planning Applications Committee. Full details here.
Meanwhile in Putney: quieter plans under scrutiny
While the Glassmill saga draws the headlines, the committee will also decide on several smaller-scale planning applications from the Putney, all of which are recommended for approval.
At 166 Upper Richmond Road in East Putney, a proposal to demolish an existing building and replace it with new office space and two flats has drawn eight objections, including from the Putney Society, which raised environmental and fire safety concerns. Officers have recommended approval with conditions requiring a BREEAM “Excellent” rating, strict air quality assessments, and a car-free designation.
In West Hill, two applications are up for decision. The first, at 151 Elsenham Street, would add a hip-to-gable roof extension and roof terrace to a terraced home. No objections were received, but a condition will require a 1.8-metre glazed privacy screen around the terrace to protect neighbours.
Nearby at 40 Skeena Hill, a more ambitious scheme proposes a rear/side extension, a basement level, and the conversion of a garage into living space. The site lies within the Sutherland Grove Conservation Area, and six residents—as well as the local Residents Association—have objected, citing overdevelopment, loss of light, and impacts on character. Planning officers have sided with the applicant, recommending approval with safeguards to protect neighbouring amenity and the area’s heritage.
Two Tree Preservation Orders will also be considered for confirmation—one on a Magnolia tree at 27 Deodar Road in Thamesfield, and another protecting a London Plane tree at 43 Upper Richmond Road in East Putney. Both are expected to be approved without challenge.
The Planning Applications Committee meets Thursday 24 April at 7:30 PM at Wandsworth Town Hall.
