A long-standing community building in the heart of Wandsworth Town could soon be demolished to make way for a boutique hotel — despite clear council rules that should protect it.
Tonight, Wandsworth Council’s Planning Applications Committee will vote on whether to allow the replacement of the former Salvation Army Citadel on Ram Street with a six-storey hotel and commercial unit (application No. 2024/4463). Council officers are recommending approval [pdf].
But the move has provoked anger from residents, who say the scheme not only fails to meet planning policy, but ignores the community entirely — offering no public events, no replacement facility, and no proof that the building was properly offered to local groups before being declared “surplus”.
The rules are clear. The evidence is not.
Under Wandsworth Local Plan Policy LP17, the Council must refuse any proposal that leads to the loss of social or community infrastructure unless:
- A facility of equivalent or improved quality is provided; or
- There is no continuing need, demonstrated through a “full and proper marketing exercise… for at least 18 months”
In this case, no replacement community facility is offered — just a ground-floor commercial unit in the new hotel. Planning officers instead justify the loss of the community space by claiming the site was marketed but found to be of no interest to community operators.
Planning officers argue that the development should be approved under LP17 because:
“The applicant has submitted marketing evidence to demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for a similar community function.”
But the only documented marketing evidence is a 3-page letter from property consultants Gerald Eve [pdf], dated July 2024 — and that letter falls well short of LP17’s requirements. Among its shortfalls, the letter:
- Fails the 18-month requirement: The site was marketed for just six weeks between 26 October and 7 December 2023. LP17 is clear: a minimum of 18 months is required to ensure genuine community reuse has been tested.
- No audit trail: While Gerald Eve claims they contacted education providers, SEN operators, and community groups, they provide no list of organisations contacted, no details of dates or follow-ups, and no responses from non-profit or voluntary sector groups.
- No offer terms or pricing disclosed: There is no guide price, tenure details, or confirmation that favourable terms were offered to community users.
- No community needs analysis: The letter makes no reference to any assessment of local demand for affordable space. It assumes disinterest based only on a lack of offers — without engaging Wandsworth’s own community development networks.
- Only commercial interest: The marketing exercise generated 13 offers — all from commercial developers. A lower offer from Wandsworth Council was rejected.
In short, this is not a “full and proper marketing exercise” — it is a brief disposal process focused on attracting the highest private bidder. Yet this appear as the justification officers provide to set aside a key protection in Wandsworth’s planning rules.
Consultation labelled “tokenistic”
The developer’s community engagement also fell short. Just 16 responses were gathered via a leaflet drop to 145 properties. No open meetings, no workshops, and no public events were held.
“There was no attempt made to carry out any community consultation through public events,” local resident Tom Niland has written in a formal objection.
“The survey questions were framed in such a way as to lead respondents to favourable answers,” added Dr Ian Madden, noting the exercise lacked neutrality.
Other objectors called the process “derisory”, “tokenistic” and “wholly inadequate”, especially given the building’s long-standing civic role in the area.
“This lack of transparency and accountability undermines trust in our planning process and local politics,” said Sandra Warren, who also questioned the Council’s willingness to defer to a BID-led view of local support.
Councillors silent as community left unsupported
Adding to public frustration, none of the three ward councillors for Wandsworth Town — Cllr Will Sweet (Conservative group leader), Cllr Sarah Davies (Labour), and Cllr Sana Jafri (Labour, Mayor of Wandsworth in 2023/24) — attended any meetings or engaged directly with residents about the proposal. The developer claims that all three were offered briefings but none accepted.
Opposition to the plan for the local community has also been unanimous: of the 22 comments sent to the formal planning application – six more than the developer cited as evidence that it had carried out an effective community consultation – all are opposed to the development.
A hotel, not a hall
The developer suggests that the new ground-floor unit could be used for community purposes — but the plans show it will function as a café and breakfast space for hotel guests. The unit falls under Class E/F2 — a broad use class that includes commercial, retail and professional services. There is no operational plan, no subsidised hire, and no requirement that the space serve local groups.
Planning officers note that even though the proposed 100 square metre space is a third of what currently exists, that the Salvation Army building – at 266 square metres – also contains offices, restrooms and a kitchen – so “the actual usable space by members of the public… are circa 133sqm.”
It even claims the new space will be better for community meetings because it “would provide a simple, enclosed area without requiring maintenance of a full building operation, making it an easier tenancy option.”
“No community group, charity, or non-commercial entity could realistically use this space… it is disingenuous,” wrote Miriam Costigan.
Building height exceeds local limits
Planning policy for this area caps building height at 18 metres. The proposed hotel reaches:
- 20.54 metres to parapet level
- 21.8 metres to the top of its rooftop plant screen
Officers admit the breach, but argue that ceiling heights and plant design justify the excess. Residents say the height will result in overshadowing, privacy loss, and visual harm to nearby homes.
Money on the table — and eyebrows raised
The applicant has offered just under £100,000 in Section 106 payments – contributions that are intended to make development acceptable in planning terms, where it would otherwise have a negative effect on the local area – including a “public realm contribution”, carbon offset charges and an employment contribution. But none of the money is earmarked for community use and no detail is given on how or where it would be spent.
The lack of transparency raises serious concerns: has Wandsworth Council effectively put a £100,000 price tag on a breach of a key planning rule designed to protect community spaces?
If the council’s own policy requires an 18-month marketing process, why is a six-week letter from a developer’s consultant considered good enough?
Decision looms
With 22 formal objections, no public support, and key policy tests unmet, all eyes are now on Wandsworth’s Planning Applications Committee.
On Thursday 26 June at 7.30pm, councillors must decide whether to enforce their own rules — or let a 125-year-old community space be replaced by a private hotel, on the back of six weeks of marketing, a token consultation, and a coffee shop dressed up as civic infrastructure.
