Homeowner's Planning Battle Shifts from Fence to £500,000 Extension

A Notting Hill homeowner who successfully defended a two-year planning dispute over a privacy fence is now seeking approval for a £500,000 ultra-modern extension, only to have the plans rejected by local councillors.

Dr. Michael Young, who works in financial services, had been in a prolonged conflict with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council (RBKC) after building a wooden screen on his roof. The council ordered its removal in 2024, asserting it breached planning rules. Dr. Young contended the screen had received approval in 2019, 2022, and 2023, leading to a lengthy battle involving the Planning Inspectorate that cost him approximately £10,000 in professional fees.

Despite the Planning Inspectorate ultimately ruling in his favor in May, Dr. Young submitted new plans earlier this year to demolish the fence and construct a three-storey extension. However, on Tuesday, RBKC councillors voted against the extension proposal by a margin of four to one. Dr. Young has instructed his planning consultant to appeal the decision, stating that the council's refusal is not justified.

"I accept that good architecture can divide opinion. What I cannot accept is an officer's report that, in my view, gave the objections a megaphone and the supporting evidence a whisper," Dr. Young told the Daily Mail. "The scheme deserves a proper and impartial examination, and I intend to pursue the appeal."

During the RBKC Planning Committee meeting, four Conservative councillors voted against the extension, while one Labour and Co-operative councillor supported it. A report from the RBKC cited the proposed development's "prominent and uncharacteristic positioning, excessive height and bulk and atypical form" as reasons for rejection, stating it would be "overly dominant and unsympathetic" and fail to protect neighboring living conditions.

The planned extension, which Dr. Young said would be constructed off-site and assembled at the property, would replace the current open terrace with a more private structure. The design includes one storey with a mezzanine, effectively three levels connected internally. Dr. Young mentioned that neighbors he has consulted are largely supportive, particularly as the extension would eliminate the open terrace, which can be a source of noise from parties.

Dr. Young believes the extension would enhance the area, introducing modern architecture into the conservation area. He views this project as distinct from the initial fence dispute, which he considered a matter of principle, whereas the extension aims to improve living conditions and the streetscape.

The original dispute began when RBKC concluded Dr. Young's privacy screen was not included in his 2019 planning application. However, the Planning Inspectorate found that the 2019 plans and subsequent variations in 2022 and 2023 explicitly referenced a roof terrace and included details of timber screening or a privacy screen. The inspectorate determined that the screen was part of the approved development and therefore not a breach of planning control.

Dr. Young described the enforcement notice as a shock, stating the screen was essential for privacy and the usability of his roof terrace. He noted that the council did not offer an apology or compensation after he incurred significant expenses to prove the council's error.

A spokesperson for Kensington and Chelsea Council stated that each planning application is assessed on its merits, with decisions made by elected councillors. They added that applicants have the right to appeal refusals to the Planning Inspectorate.