A Notting Hill homeowner who won a two-year £10,000 planning battle over a wooden privacy fence is now seeking permission to tear the structure down – and replace it with an ultra-modern extension.
Dr Michael Young became embroiled in a row with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council (RBKC) after building a screen on his roof which they ordered he remove in 2024.
Dr Young, who works in financial services, maintained the screen was approved by the council in 2019, 2022 and 2023 – resulting in a two-and-a-half-year-long dispute involving the Planning Inspectorate and costing him almost £10,000 in planning consultants', legal and architects' fees.
Yet despite the inspectorate ultimately ruling in his favour in May, Dr Young sought permission earlier this year to voluntarily tear down the screen he spent more than five years fighting to keep – and replace it with a three-storey extension costing £500,000.
But on Tuesday, councillors from the RBKC rejected his plans for the new extension by four votes to one, leaving Dr Young set to go head to head with the council one more time after instructing his planning consultant to appeal the decision.
Dr Young told the Daily Mail the council's refusal to accept his plans is not 'justified'.
He said: '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 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. Any assessment deserved the whole picture.
Notting Hill homeowner Dr Michael Young is seeking to add an ultra-modern £500,000 extension to his home
Dr Young had been embroiled in a row with Kensington and Chelsea Council after erecting a screen on his roof which he was ordered to remove in 2024 (Pictured: The wooden privacy screen)
Dr Young previously won a £10,000 planning battle with the council over the wooden screen. Now he plans to tear it down completely (pictured)
'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, hosted on Tuesday, October 6, 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 Earth gave that planning permission?'
A report released by the RBKC on Thursday further detailed the council's reasons for rejecting the plans. It 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 fail to protect neighbouring living conditions.'
The extension – which Dr Young said would be constructed off-site and assembled at the property – would replace the £1.2million home's open terrace with a 'private structure'.
In terms of the design, he said: 'It is one storey with a mezzanine. So, there is one level in the basement, one on the first floor, and then the mezzanine. It is essentially three levels.
'But is all one house, connected internally through staircases. It is designed specifically to ensure that there is no overlooking terrace. It's a much more private structure than it is at present with the open terrace.'
The extension would replace the £1.2million home's open terrace with a 'private structure' assembled off-site (Pictured: An architect's drawing of the extension)
The extension would be one storey with three levels, including a mezzanine
Dr Young said neighbours he has spoken to have no objections to the extension being built
He added he has spoken to some neighbours regarding his plans – with most having no objections.
Dr Young said: 'I have spoken to some neighbours, but not all. There are quite a few rental properties around the area. Some of the neighbours are very supportive because the extension removes the terrace. Terraces tend not to be viewed very favourably, because people can have parties on them, making noise.'
Dr Young also maintained there are 'many upsides' to building an extension such as this – driving his ambitions to ultimately have it approved by the council.
He said: 'The extension would improve the area and the streetscape, not just my home. It would also introduce modern architecture into the conservation area. So there are many upsides in doing something like this.
'I have got no issue per se, with the irony of building this because the battle with the council initially because that was simply a point of principle. Whereas this is something that will increase the living conditions of the property, and in turn, will improve the street, and I believe the conservation area as well.'
Dr Young's original dispute began after the RBKC concluded his privacy screen breached planning rules as it was not included in a planning application he submitted in 2019.
But earlier this year, the Planning Inspectorate ruled the plans did 'explicitly' reference a roof terrace and a privacy screen could reasonably be included within that.
A report by the inspectorate found: 'The description of development does not explicitly refer to boundary treatment on the roof terrace.
'However, the roof terrace itself is explicitly referred to in the description of development and shown on the approved plans.
Dr Young was granted permission to construct the fence at the heart of his original row with the council in 2019
Dr Young's planned extension would see the open terrace and wooden fence demolished entirely
'There is no separate condition requiring details of boundary treatment on the roof terrace to be agreed.
'It follows, therefore, that 2019 permission incorporates boundary treatment on the roof terrace, in the form as shown on the approved plans comprised in the 2019 permission.'
In 2022 and 2023, Dr Young requested to alter the plans he made in 2019.
The 2022 plans were annotated to reflect 'timber screening' on the black railings, as well as the inclusion of a 'trellis for screen'.
Permission was once again granted for these alterations, according to the report, as the council did not request further details to be agreed nor explicitly exclude the erection of a timber screen.
The 2023 plans also clearly outlined the building of the fence, with the report confirming it approved documents 'clearly show the erection of a "pressure treated timber cladding trellis privacy screen".'
Yet the RBKC again did not request for more details of boundary treatment on the terrace to be agreed, or ask for it to be omitted.
As a result, the inspector said they considered the 'approved plans incorporate the erection of a timber screen on the roof terrace'.
He said: 'Overall, I conclude that the timber screen on the roof terrace subject of the notice is comprised in the planning permission granted in 2019 and subsequently varied in 2022 and 2023.
The Planning Inspectorate ruled in Dr Young's favour earlier this year
'To that end, the alleged breach of planning control stated in the notice, does not constitute a breach of planning control in accordance with S171A(1) of the Act.'
Dr Young previously said he considered the screen to be a necessary addition to his home, as in its absence, his roof terrace is overlooked by neighbours.
Without the screen, he said, the roof terrace would be 'unusable' – resulting in his shock when served with an enforcement notice early in 2024.
Dr Young said: 'My first reaction was confusion. The screen is not a luxury. It is the difference between a usable outdoor space and a mutual loss of privacy.
'The appeal I wrote should have been a single sentence: "Check your own files".'
In the end, Dr Young said he took his case to the government adjudicator after every resolution he explored with the council was unsuccessful. He was issued the successful verdict in a report published on May 5.
But he said he remains dissatisfied with how the ordeal was handled – saying he did not receive an apology nor compensation for the stress he was caused.
In fact, Dr Young said he racked up large bills including architect fees, planning consultants, legal advice, and £516 in appeal fees.
He said: '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 Kensington and Chelsea Council spokesperson 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.'
Do YOU have a story? Email caitlin.leng@dailymail.co.uk