Battersea Power Station, once a vital coal-fired power facility and a defining feature of London’s skyline, has undergone a transformation that reflects both the challenges and opportunities of urban redevelopment. This Grade II*-listed transportation landmark gained international fame as the cover for Pink Floyd’s “Animals” album. Today, it has morphed from an operational workhorse into a high-end economic driver and residential and commercial hotbed. The trip has not been easy. Even with its ambitious goals for redevelopment, the project has received backlash over its affordability and planning.
The coal power station’s new owners, a Malaysian consortium, announced in 2012 that they would build luxury apartments and shopping malls on the site. This purchase would prove to be the catalyst for a new chapter in the site’s history. It had been in gross disrepair for nearly as long as it was in service. When the plant finally closed in 1983, it was the end of an era. For decades, it endured false starts and blight as numerous redevelopment plans—including a grand plan for a theme park and a plan for a new stadium for Chelsea FC—collapsed.
To complicate matters even further, the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station has been stifled for decades by its listed landmark status. From these difficulties, however, the project has been able to successfully pump out around 4.5 million new homes into England’s housing stock. The £1.1 billion extension of the Northern Line was central to its revival. That investment did wonders to create a more welcoming space.
The structural and architectural fabric of Battersea Power Station has informed and dictated much of the building’s redevelopment over the years. The walls are 48-metre-high brick walls, soaring, but now stabilized with steel bracing. That protection is so important because it allows them to survive as shiny new developments are built all around them. The development has not escaped scrutiny. Yet today, critics are warning that luxury projects with affordable housing still aren’t going away. Residents see these developments as primarily benefiting foreign investors, at the expense of those who live here.
The imbalance in local councils’ ability to raise revenue through council tax has faced heavy criticism. New residents of Battersea Power Station are currently receiving an 80% reduction in their council tax, despite having £1m+ properties. This has led to allegations that the tax code is unfair. The most expensive unit, a luxury five-bedroom flat in the development, sold for £3.2 million. Yet it was put in one of the lowest housing bands (Band G), raising issues of equity in taxation.
“It all gets very silly. New valuations are based on ‘how much would this property have been worth in 1991’, which is a fairly nonsensical discussion.” – John Merry
Andrew Dixon, another critic, echoed similar sentiments about the council tax system:
“Let’s say we introduced council tax today, with a rate of less than 1% in Westminster and 2% in Wigan. I think people would be up in arms.”
Dixon further noted how the narrow bands between property valuations could lead to significant inequities:
“The bands are so narrow between A and H, and property prices have changed so much, that it ends up as a de facto poll tax.”
UK resident Tony Belton told us how his life has changed with the remarkable transformation around the legendary Battersea Power Station. He pointed out the incredible change to the landscape. He described it as:
“Largely completely flat, derelict land… It was a desert, really.”
As new developments continue to rise around Battersea Power Station, the local community grapples with the implications of such rapid change. Stuart Hoddinott pointed out:
“It’s unimaginable. There was nothing here, and certainly no one living here.”
He added that this discrepancy often impacts those in lower-value properties disproportionately:
“It is clearly a deeply broken system. That valuation on 1991 properties is so ridiculously out of date now that it’s almost laughable.”
He added that this discrepancy often impacts those in lower-value properties disproportionately:
“Particularly when you have people in relatively low-value properties, who are generally worse off, paying quite a lot as a share of their property value compared with someone in an enormous mansion in London.”