A HOMEOWNER who won a £10k battle against the council over a 7ft fence has now applied for permission to tear it down.
After years of rowing with Royal Borough of Kensington and Council (RBKC), Dr Michael Young wants to replace the structure with a £500k extension.
The of his £1.2million home in Notting Hill, which was deemed unlawful by RBKC in January 2024.
But Planning Inspectorate officials quashed the notice ordering him to tear the panels down after a 30-month battle and claimed £10,000 legal fees.
Despite spending five years fighting for a fence, Dr Young sought permission earlier this year to voluntarily tear down the screen and replace it with a three-storey extension.
Dr Young, who works in financial services, is now set to face the body again after RBKC councillors rejected his new proposals by four votes to one.
He told the Daily Mail : “I heard plenty about why councillors disliked the building at the committee meeting. I heard considerably less about why the evidence justified refusing it.
“I accept that good can divide . What I cannot accept is an officer’s report that, in my view, gave the objections a megaphone and the supporting evidence a whisper.
“Any assessment deserved the whole picture. The scheme deserves a proper and impartial examination, and I intend to pursue the appeal that will give it one.
“I will now appeal and see whether the evidence can carry the weight of that confidence.”
A RBKC Planning Committee meeting on the plans saw four Conservative councillors vote against the plans, while Jack Reason, a Labour and Co-operative councillor, backed the proposal.
Conservative councillor Lloyd North told the committee: “We all walk around the borough and look at buildings and say: who on gave that planning permission?”
RBKC’s report detailed the reasoning behind the rejection read: “The proposed development would appear overly dominant and unsympathetic by virtue of its prominent and uncharacteristic positioning, excessive height and bulk and atypical form.
“The proposal would therefore to protect neighbouring living conditions.”
But Dr Young says the structure will be “more private” than it is at present, and that most neighbours he’s spoken to have no objections.
Determined to one day gain approval, he added there are “many upsides” to building the extension.
“The extension would improve the area and the streetscape, not just my home. It would also introduce modern architecture into the conservation area,” he said.
The council dispute began in 2024 after an enforcement notice was issued ordering Dr Young to tear his 7ft fence down.
He claimed the council had seen and approved drawings of the home – including the screen – which had been submitted in 2019, 2022, and 2023.
At the time, the homeowner told The Sun : “The whole saga could have been avoided with a cup of tea, a custard cream, and five minutes spent checking the planning records.”
After an “incredibly frustrating, time-consuming and expensive” two and a half years Dr Young’s case finally reached a planning inspectorate.
The ruling found: “The timber screen on the roof terrace subject of the notice is comprised in the planning permission granted in 2019.”
Dr Young added: “I had to assemble a small army of professionals – architects, planners, lawyers – just to point the council back to its own approvals.
“He found that the alleged breach of planning control did not exist. Not that the Council had a different interpretation. Not that it was a grey area.
“The council was wrong from day one. They wasted years of my life and thousands of my pounds. They have not offered a penny. They have not apologised. They have not even admitted they were wrong.”
A spokesperson for RBKC said: “Every planning application is considered on its own merits, taking account of relevant planning policies, the evidence submitted and representations from residents and other interested parties.
“Where an application is referred to our Planning Applications Committee, planning officers provide a considered report and recommendation, but the ultimate decision rests with elected councillors.
“Those committee members consider the relevant planning issues before reaching a decision at a public meeting. Applicants have the right to appeal a refusal to the independent Planning Inspectorate, which will consider the planning merits of the case.”
