Wandsworth Council’s controversial Lennox Estate redevelopment is unravelling as Transport for London (TfL) has used the council’s own parking surveys to argue the estate has too much parking.
The problem: residents say the opposite is true and the surveys are wrong. They counted the cars themselves and the estate is full. TfL has taken the council’s figures at face value and now says recreating 32 parking spaces makes no sense when 81 new “car-free” homes will be added.
Then there’s the car club that doesn’t exist. The council used car clubs to justify zero parking: planning rules say you need to prove car clubs are available before you can get rid of parking spaces. Three months after submitting the application listing “one car club vehicle,” the council admits it has no operator.
Zipcar left London on 31 December, leaving 60,000 borough residents without access. The council told the Transport Committee on 11 February it has “no formal commitment yet” from any replacement.
The council is both developer and decision-maker. It’s trying to push through a plan that residents, TfL, and a Planning Inspector in 1992 have all said is too dense for a site already deficient in open space.
TfL says the numbers don’t add up
Transport for London won’t support the development until the council provides “further information” about parking, it said in a 12 February response [pdf].
TfL points to the council’s own September 2023 parking surveys: 69% occupancy overnight, 64% morning, 57% afternoon. That means 20-30% of spaces stand empty. “Given the clear evidence of surplus capacity and the car-free nature of the scheme, there is no planning rationale for increasing the number of spaces,” TfL wrote.
The council wants to demolish parking spaces where buildings will go, then recreate 32 of those spaces elsewhere on the estate. TfL says this is “unjustified and contrary to the principles of sustainable development.”
The 81 new homes get zero parking permits under the “car-free” label. So TfL asks: if new residents can’t have permits anyway, why keep the parking?
The car club that doesn’t exist
The council said car clubs would make the development work. But there’s a problem.
The application submitted in November 2025 listed one car club car. Three months later, there’s no operator.
Zipcar left London on 31 December 2025. At the Transport Committee meeting on 11 February, council staff admitted they’re talking to Enterprise but “we haven’t had any formal commitment yet.”
Enterprise works differently from Zipcar. It wants dedicated bays at specific developments, not the borough-wide membership model Zipcar offered. “That’s why we’re having to have these discussions about how that would work in practice,” an officer explained.
So the application listed a car club to justify the parking plans. Now there’s no operator to provide it.
What the council told three different people
The council plays three roles at once: it’s proposing the development, deciding whether to approve it, and responsible for providing car clubs.
On 4 February, responding to Fleur Anderson MP after a resident raised concerns, the council said car clubs are “an additional sustainable option that can be secured by obligation if required.” That suggests they’re not essential.
But they are. Planning rules require the council to prove car clubs are available before eliminating parking. The application listed the car club as part of that proof.
On 11 February, council staff told the Transport Committee no operator has committed. That raises the obvious question: how do you force a promise when no operator exists?
In November, the application used the car club to justify zero parking for 81 homes.
Now TfL questions the whole parking strategy using the council’s own data. The council presumably knows actual demand is higher than the surveys show, but can’t argue with TfL without admitting its own surveys are wrong.
Residents did their own count
Mrs Mira Kostadinova lives near the bit of Arabella Drive the council wants to close. One morning she counted more than 60 cars parked on that stretch alone. “I believe your estimate for the loss of parking is largely understated,” she wrote in her objection [pdf].
The council’s surveys date from September 2023, 26 months before the application. The documents don’t say when in September, what times of day, or how the counting was done. The applicant’s consultant did the work. No peer review. No raw numbers, just a percentage range of 70-80% occupancy.
Sixty-eight per cent of the objectors raised parking as a concern.
Fire engines couldn’t get through
Six fire engines struggled to reach Burke Close on 27 March 2025 because cars blocked the narrow roads. Residents watched firefighters fight for access while flames ripped through neighbours’ homes.
Hugo Cerda lives at 62 Burke Close, one of the properties hit by the fire. He objected [pdf] to the Lennox application: “This area has already experienced a significant infrastructure incident, demonstrating that existing systems are under strain.”
Tony Arthur asked in his objection: “What have the emergency services said about the new road plan?” The scheme closes part of Arabella Drive permanently and creates a one-way system.
Julie Maskell warned [pdf] the one-way system “creates a situation where residents could effectively be trapped within the estate” if something blocks the road.
Burke Close is 800 metres from the development site. The Fire Safety Strategy completed 15 days after the fire doesn’t mention it.
The housing need is real
Responding to the MP, the council laid out the problem directly. “More than 11,000 households are currently on the waiting list, and over 3,000 households are in temporary accommodation. However, planning law requires decisions to be made on material planning considerations, not numbers alone.”
All 81 new homes would be 100% affordable council rent. The need is genuine. But the Planning Committee must choose between housing and a multitude of objections about the plan itself. Disputed survey data and no car club operator are just the latest issues.
The council decides its own application. It can approve despite TfL’s objection, but must justify why. Roehampton ward councillors Graeme Henderson (Cabinet Member for Health, cllr.g.henderson@wandsworth.gov.uk), Matthew Tiller (Deputy Cabinet Member for Housing, cllr.m.tiller@wandsworth.gov.uk), and Jenny Yates (Cabinet Member for Transport, cllr.j.yates@wandsworth.gov.uk) will be involved in that decision.
Residents can still submit objections through the planning portal (application 2025/4170) or to planning@wandsworth.gov.uk. Fleur Anderson MP has already raised resident concerns with the council and can be contacted at fleur.anderson.mp@parliament.uk for follow-up.
The committee must decide whether TfL is right that the parking isn’t needed based on the council’s own data, or whether residents are right that the surveys are wrong. Either way, the car club meant to bridge the gap doesn’t exist.
