More Housing to Meet Battersea’s Needs?

Many people in Battersea will have seen the recent announcement about the agreement between Wandsworth Council and Battersea Power Station to build 200 new houses for social rent as part of Phase 5 of the Power Station development. That’s obviously very welcome.

But at a more strategic level, the Council published proposals back in October 2023 to increase the amount of affordable housing across the borough. Essentially, the proposal was to increase from 35% to 45% the minimum proportion of affordable housing for any large development of more than 10 homes; and of that affordable housing, 70% would have to be for social rent. If they proposed lower proportions, developers would have to submit to a series of detailed viability assessments. The proposals also included further restrictions on the building of student accommodation, of large-scale single-room ‘co-living’ developments, and on build-to-rent schemes.

These proposals amounted to significant changes in the Local Plan approved in 2022. After two rounds of consultation, these changes were submitted to the Secretary of State, who appointed an Inspector to assess them. The ‘Examination in Public’ (EIP) took place on 4-6 November, and the Liz Walton and Michael Jubb participated on behalf of the Battersea Society.

Our main concern – as it had been when the current Local Plan was being considered – was that while the Council admitted that the priority need was for more family-sized homes, the proposals allowed for far too many studio, one-bed and two-bed homes, and not enough family-sized ones. The Council was sympathetic to some extent, but argued that they had to balance costly family-sized homes against smaller (and cheaper-to-build) ones, and efficient use of land. Lots of small units of course contribute to simple numeric housing targets more than fewer but larger units do. We argued that efficient land use should be measured by the extent to which it meets the needs of the borough’s residents; and that not providing sufficient family-sized homes would at best leave many residents in overcrowded homes, or force them to leave the borough. We also pointed out that an over-supply of studio and one-bed units promoted the high levels – among the very highest in the whole country - of young people who move into and then out of the borough in a very short time. This works against one of the core aims of planning policy – to create stable, balanced and sustainable communities. Unfortunately, we did not win that argument. Developers’ desire to build cheap small units seems to trump the needs of the borough’s residents.

We did manage to make some minor changes to other policies, mainly to clarify what they actually meant. But the GLA opposed the proposal to increase the minimum proportion of affordable housing, and it was clear that the Inspector was sceptical too. His report will be produced at some point early 2026; but it seems unlikely that Council’s core proposal will be accepted.