Two hundred and eighty-seven people submitted comments on Wandsworth Council’s plan to build 81 homes on the Lennox Estate in Roehampton. Every single one objected to the proposal. Not one supports it.
The public consultation for planning application 2025/4170 closed on 19 January 2026, giving residents their only formal opportunity to respond to the proposed 14-storey tower and six-storey block on the estate’s green space.
The Lennox Estate objections included 70 individual submissions and a 217-signature petition, revealing deep concerns about losing green space, worsening parking problems, and emergency vehicle access. They also reveal something else: residents who have lived on the estate for decades, some for their entire lives, who feel their home is being transformed without their consent.
The numbers
The consultation produced 307 total responses: 83 individual objections, 217 petition signatures, four general observations about the consultation process, and three responses from statutory consultees (HSE, Historic England, Thames Water).
Of the 70 individual commenters, 46 live on the Lennox Estate itself, 17 live nearby in SW15, and three live further afield. The 217 petition signatories all identify as Lennox Estate residents.
The overwhelming concern, raised by 76% of individual commenters, was the loss of green space.
Green space: “Central to the identity of this estate”
More than three-quarters of everyone who commented mentioned the green space. For many, this isn’t abstract. It’s where they grew up, where their children play, where the community gathers.
“I have lived on this estate for my entire life, 31 years, and the green space, football pitch, and youth club have been an integral part of my upbringing,” wrote Emily Calcott, who lives in Louisa House. “These spaces were vital in allowing children and young people to play safely, build friendships, develop social skills, and feel part of a community. They are not unused land; they are central to the identity and wellbeing of this estate.”
The Treloggan family has lived on Arabella Drive even longer. “Having lived on Arabella Drive for 53 years, my family can confirm that this space has always been actively used,” wrote John Treloggan from Arabella Drive.
For families without gardens, the green space isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity.
“Children on this estate are already extremely limited with space to play as many of the flats do not have balconies or gardens and the green space is the only area they can play or escape to,” wrote Kerry White from Esme House.
And for those with limited mobility, it’s irreplaceable. “The green area is needed for children and for us who can’t walk far away from flat, people with arthritis,” wrote Jasminka Kovacevic from Arabella Drive.
The estate’s green space is not just cherished by residents. It’s protected by planning policy. Residents successfully defended this land from development six times between 1989 and 1994, culminating in a Planning Inspector’s ruling that the estate was deficient in accessible open space and that housing need could not override that protection.
Parking and traffic: “Where will people park?”
The second most common concern, raised by 68% of commenters, was parking. The development proposes zero parking spaces for 81 new homes, relying instead on a “car-free” policy enforced by new parking controls across the entire estate.
“There is no parking at present here at the moment for the residents that live here, where will the people who live here park, while this construction is going on?” wrote Barry Work from Esme House.
One resident directly challenged the council’s figures. “With your application you state that 33 car spaces are affected. If you count cars on the proposed for closure stretch of Arabella, there are more than 60 cars parked on a random morning,” wrote Mira Kostadinova from Arabella Drive. “I believe your estimate for the loss of parking is largely understated.”
Safety and emergency access: “Insanity in its finest form”
More than half of commenters (52%) raised concerns about safety, particularly emergency vehicle access. These concerns are not hypothetical.
On 27 March 2025, a gas explosion and fire occurred at Burke Close, within the Lennox Estate. One survivor submitted a comment about the Lennox Estate objections process.
“On the 27th of March, 2025 our house suffered a fire and gas explosion. My daughter and I were home at the time when the fire started and witnessed the gas explosion along with the fire fighter being blown backwards from our house when the explosion happened,” wrote Fiona McCarthy from Burke Close. “I have been diagnosed with complex PTSD as a result of the explosion and fire and events of that day.
“The fire services could barely get into the estate, getting a fire hose into the house to extinguish the blaze took the fire team longer than necessary as they were unable to get onto our road. The notion to build further in this estate is insanity in its finest form.”
Other residents referenced the same incident. “Earlier this year, during a fire at Burke Close, a fire engine struggled to gain access due to restricted space,” wrote Dr Windy Grendele from Arabella Drive.
“After a fire has already happened here, it is disgusting that fire safety and emergency access are still being ignored,” wrote Izabella Darkazalli from Arabella Drive.
Putney.news previously reported that six fire engines attended the Burke Close incident, with crews reporting difficulty navigating the estate’s narrow roads. The council’s current proposal would close part of Arabella Drive to through traffic.
One objection revealed another emergency function of The Green: it serves as a helicopter landing site. “The use of the green for air ambulances to land that have, whilst not frequently, been able to attend serious collisions on the Upper Richmond Road and other emergencies,” wrote Lea Heron from Ludovick Walk.
The London Fire Brigade, which would need to assess both ground access and helicopter landing capability, did not respond to the consultation.
The 14-storey tower: “Ridiculous”
The proposed tower height drew strong opposition from 38% of commenters.
“The height of 14 storeys is ridiculous; the design is not sympathetic to the existing building,” wrote Sean Normoyle from Rockingham Close.
The Putney Society, which has objected to this scheme three times since March 2024, put it in policy terms. “14 storeys is still eight more than the policy the council would expect any other developer to comply with.”
The council’s own heritage advisors unanimously recommended refusing the application, citing policy breaches on building height and protected open space.
The consultation process: “Truly unfair”
Nearly a quarter of commenters (23%) raised concerns about the consultation itself, which ran through Christmas and New Year.
“It is truly unfair that this proposal is being done during the busy period of Christmas and new year. There is a lot of information to read. This should be conducted at a more suitable time for fairness. It is our community and our future. We should not be treated in this manner at all,” wrote Antony Arthur from Sarah House.
Arthur also raised accessibility concerns. “The information within some of the documents are far too small to read. This proposal does not meet or consider those with disabilities within the consultation process.”
The fear
One comment captured something the statistics don’t show.
“Everybody in the estate is against the proposal but too scared to raise their voice,” wrote Valentina Martinez from Arabella Drive.
The experts who didn’t reply
While 287 residents found time to object, several statutory consultees did not respond at all.
The Health and Safety Executive sent a procedural response directing the council to their web app. Historic England said it wasn’t necessary to notify them. Thames Water raised no objection but requested conditions about piling near their infrastructure.
The London Fire Brigade’s absence is particularly notable given residents’ concerns about emergency access, a fire on the estate nine months earlier, and The Green’s use as an air ambulance landing site.
What happens next
The application is awaiting a decision by Wandsworth Council’s planning committee. The council is both the applicant and the decision-maker.
Because the tower exceeds 30 metres, the Mayor of London must also be consulted before any final decision. No committee date has been set.
The stopping up order for Arabella Drive is a separate legal process where the public can object.
