Scaffolding has become a permanent feature around the Travelodge hotel on Falcon Road, a visible reminder of ongoing construction issues.

This pattern reveals a critical weakness in the system: material specifications are often treated as secondary details rather than fundamental design considerations.

Shortly after construction began, concerns were raised about the increased size of the building and the use of cladding, which appeared to be a cheaper alternative to what was originally proposed.

Critics suggest the Council’s planning department has frequently been willing to relax regulations on the basis that partial compliance is preferable to no development at all.

A cheap cladding to save money, approved by the Council

Following the initial approval, the project underwent three amendment applications. In 2011, the number of hotel rooms was increased from 70 to 84—a 20% rise—alongside minor changes to the building’s elevation. Two further applications in 2012 permitted alterations to the plant room and the addition of a rooftop extension, raising the overall height to 27.6 metres.

Wandsworth’s planning office was content to approve each modification, referring to the rooftop addition as a “minor” increase in the overall structure—1.6 metres, or roughly half a storey—to accommodate the new plant facility.

These changes also brought about significant modifications to the cladding materials, a key visual element of the development that had previously been subject to close public and design scrutiny.

In the report for application 2012/1255, the case officer noted that the cladding material changed from a lighter shade, similar to the current Wetherspoons pub beside, to a more vivid colour on parts, resembling red brick facades.

In December 2012, the Clapham Junction Action Group (the local community group at the origine of CJI) wrote to the Wandsworth Planning officer, raising concerns on the change:

“We have been informed that during construction phases, the developer decided to change the material used for the cladding (the new one being up to 65% cheaper).

The change of cladding includes:

• Colour less sympathetic to the surrounding area
• Poorer quality as the cladding used will have to be changed within 35 years”

In his response, the planning officer acknowledged that “changes in the quality of cladding using a cheaper material to reduce cost was made“. However, he did not find any objection to make and dismissed any possibility of harm to the area:

“The materials are considered to be acceptable, and are the type of materials you would expect to find in a contemporary hotel development. They should not unduly harm the appearance of the locality and they should sustain and conserve the character of the conservation area, and the setting of the nearby listed buildings.”

This pattern reveals a critical weakness in the system: material specifications are often treated as secondary details rather than fundamental design considerations.

There is no doubt that fewer than 15 years after construction, the building is already in a very poor state, and sooner rather than later a complete removal of the existing cladding will be necessary to implement an alternative solution at considerable expense.

In the meantime, the owners are allowing the construction to deteriorate through quick fixes and permanent scaffolding to protect passers-by. The building is rapidly becoming an eyesore in the heart of the Clapham Junction area.

An application marked with controversy from the start

In 2009, Oak Trading Company Ltd submitted an application that would transform the Clapham Junction skyline: a 16-storey hotel with 132 rooms on the site of Woburn House at 155 Falcon Road. The proposal immediately drew intense opposition from multiple quarters.

The site’s location within the Clapham Junction Conservation Area, with views of the Grade II listed Falcon Public House and the Grade II Listed Arding & Hobbs department store, made the scale particularly controversial. Local residents submitted 85 objections, while English Heritage, the Mayor of London, and Martin Linton MP for Battersea all opposed the development. The charity for historic sites said: “There is no precedent for a tall building within the area, which is characterised by Victorian and Edwardian architecture no greater than seven storey of height.“

The main concerns centred on the building’s scale relative to its surroundings, potential noise and traffic impacts from a 132-room hotel, and the proposed entrance on Mossbury Road—a narrow one-way residential street.

After the withdrawal of a separate application for twin 42-storey skyscrapers at Clapham Junction station, the idea of a single 16-storey block was widely seen as incongruous. The council refused the application, citing the height as “unduly prominent” and stating it would fail to preserve or enhance the area

Ten months later, a substantially revised application emerged: an 8-storey hotel with 70 bedrooms, representing a dramatic scaling back from the original proposal.

According to the original consultant architect, speaking years after construction was completed, the initial plan had actually been for an 8-storey hotel. However, he claimed that while the planning department was considering the 42-storey towers for Clapham Junction station, officers encouraged submission of a larger structure, which lead to the 16-storey proposal. This connection to the tower proposal was also confirmed by Tim Glass, the developer.

The second application addressed several key concerns raised by objectors, including relocating the main entrance from Mossbury Road to Falcon Road and eliminating in-house restaurant facilities to reduce servicing requirements. It retained some of the existing structure, included comprehensive refurbishment and recladding, and added new Victorian-style residential units to help the building blend with the local context. The revised proposal was approximately half the height of the original plan and included measures to reduce noise, traffic, and parking pressures.

CJAG acknowledged the developer’s efforts to address community concerns, noting in their formal response: “The least we can say is that the developers listened to all arguments and tried to address them in their new proposal.” However, the group maintained reservations about the building’s height, arguing that the 8-storey proposal remained inappropriate for the local context—described as “at the bottom of an area of homogeneous Victorian and Edwardian low rise houses.”

The community group recommended a further reduction of 1-2 storeys, suggesting the building should be “similar in size to the cupola in the building hosting Fitness First.” They proposed design modifications including stepped-back upper floors or dormer-style windows to create what they termed a “diminishing effect” consistent with local architectural patterns.

The group also cited precedents where the council had refused applications for being too tall, citing the Wessex House development on St John’s Hill, which was rejected for being just one storey excessive.

The Council approved the scheme in June 2010. However, implementation proved challenging. The developer found that preserving the existing building’s internal frame was more complex and time-consuming than anticipated, leading to a new application in early 2011 for complete demolition and reconstruction.

The amendment loophole system

A non-material amendment may be applied for to approve minor changes to planning permission without breaching conditions originally placed on the consent. If the amendment is not considered minor by the Local Planning Authority, a new planning application should be required. However, the Falcon Road case illustrates how this system can fail in practice.

After planning permission has been granted, developers frequently seek to make changes to approved plans. The issue is that councils have broad discretion in determining what constitutes a “minor” change, creating potential for exploitation through multiple small amendments that collectively transform the approved scheme.

In effect, accepting a minor amendment means the local planning authority will not take enforcement action against the breach of planning control whilst ensuring an accurate record of the development as completed. This can create a system where developers build first and seek retrospective approval later.

• Read: Residents of St Peter’s site on Plough Road deeply upset by developer’s tricks and ongoing nuisance

The persistent scaffolding visible on buildings across the UK today is not solely about fire safety remediation—it often reflects ongoing construction disputes, enforcement issues, and developers attempting to modify buildings after approval. The Falcon Road case demonstrates how such problems can persist for over a decade, with buildings remaining partially completed or requiring constant modifications due to inadequate initial planning oversight.

While it may be unpopular to say, “I told you so,” it is worth recalling that concerns about the quality of cladding was raised on this very website more than 13 years ago.

We tried to contact Oak Trading, the property owner. Tim Glass, that we met several times back in 2009, is no longer director, having probably retired.

UPDATE 04/06/2025: Additional information on cladding and quote from CJAG mail. Several additional photos on the damaged cladding.