Notting Hill £1.2m homeowner who won two-year £10,000 planning battle with council over a fence wants to replace it with £500,000 ultra-modern extension
A Notting Hill homeowner who won a two-year legal battle against the local council over a roof screen is now planning to replace it with a £500,000 ultra-modern extension. Dr Michael Young has instructed planning consultants to appeal after the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council rejected his new proposal by four votes to one, meaning he faces another dispute with the same council he only recently defeated.
Dr Young's original fight cost him nearly £10,000 in fees after the council ordered him to remove the screen in 2024, despite him maintaining it had been approved in 2019, 2022 and 2023. The Planning Inspectorate ruled in his favour in May, but he then sought permission to tear down the screen and build a three-storey extension with a mezzanine that would replace his property's open terrace, describing it as providing more privacy than the current arrangement.
- Homeowner who won £10,000 planning battle now faces new council rejection
- Plans £500,000 extension to replace screen he just fought to keep
- Appeal likely after 4-1 council vote against new proposal
New here? Start with this
Homeowners in London sometimes need permission from their local council before they can modify their properties. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council, which covers the affluent Notting Hill area, must approve or reject these applications. If residents disagree with a council decision, they can appeal to an independent body called the Planning Inspectorate.
Dr Michael Young, a Notting Hill resident, spent two years fighting with the council over a roof screen at his £1.2 million home. The council demanded he remove it despite his belief that it had been approved in previous years. After spending around £10,000 in legal fees, the Planning Inspectorate ruled in his favour and the screen was allowed to remain.
Rather than keeping the screen, Dr Young now wants to tear it down and build a £500,000 modern extension in its place. The council has rejected this new proposal, and he is planning to appeal the decision. This means he is set for another planning dispute with the same council he only recently defeated.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Property owners should have reasonable rights to develop and improve their homes through proper planning channels. Dr Young has already demonstrated good faith by winning an appeal against the council's erroneous rejection of his roof screen, vindicated by the Planning Inspectorate. He is following the correct procedure by applying and appealing, and his legitimate proposal for a modern extension deserves genuine consideration on its merits rather than routine obstruction.
The case against
The council has planning authority and professional expertise to balance individual development desires against protecting neighbourhood character, preventing overdevelopment, and preserving amenity for all residents. The four-to-one vote suggests substantive planning concerns about the scale, design, or impact of the proposed extension, and the council's role is precisely to exercise such judgment on major developments rather than defer automatically to property owner preferences.