I still feel that such structures near aircraft routes should be well marked with high intensity lighting as unlike a building they are hard or near impossible to see in such conditions.
I disagree. In the old days when accurate nav was impossible - particularly for the solo pilot - there was a good case for lighting but these days we, aviators and the industry, should stay clear of high objects. Yes, huge chimneys, radio masts, etc. in the middle of practically nowhere need special care and they get it. High intensity lighting is expensive, wasteful of energy, unsightly and pollutes the night sky.
I'm still baffled why the pilot chose to fly into an urban area with that clag when there are so many alternates with minimal terrain clearance issues all with brilliant rail/road and air links to wherever, and excellent ground/engineering services. If you're anywhere near Battersea you are literally spoilt for choice and there are are excellent visual routes out (trunk roads) that can be followed in an emergency. Based only on the high praise the deceased pilot has been receiving from the industry it makes me think that he had some emergency other than weather to contend with. Ill health, airframe or engine problems, instrumentation,...might even have been fuel, of course. Despite the prima facie evidence that there was considerable fuel on board, it doesn't follow that it was reaching the engines or maybe the pilot's instrumentation indicated a fuel problem. More probable than an experienced pilot flying into a crane
