Everyone who’s anyone has at one time or another graced its beautiful blue and white tiled room on Langton Street, from Princesses Diana and Kate, to Placido Domingo and Mick Jagger, to Kate Moss and Felicity Kendal.

Above all, it is a homely, family-run restaurant serving Tuscan cuisine that has been adored by local residents ever since it opened its doors in 1975. That is, except for one neighbour.

The Citizen can reveal that La Famiglia has been in the grip of a long-running feud with a local man for more than 18 months that has escalated to the point that it threatens the very future of this elegant, discreet venue. Now, celebrities and locals are rallying round to support its owners and staff.

“The situation has got out of hand and now we are all concerned for what lies ahead,” said one worried regular. “The word has gone out that La Famiglia needs its family, so everyone is doing what they can to help.”

The row centres around noise coming from the garden dining room, which was opened in 1982 and was extended a few years later. It has 80 covers and has operated successfully without any complaints from residents ever since.

The garden backs onto multiple residential properties where the disgruntled neighbour in question lives. By some irony, he is an Italian man in his 30s, who began renting a flat in the area in November 2024. In January 2025, as the restaurant celebrated its golden anniversary, he started lodging complaints.

The man –  whose identity The Citizen is not revealing – claimed that loud chatter from guests and serving noise from staff  – the moving of cutlery and glasses – was waking up his baby daughter, who is now two. He even noted that celebrating diners singing Happy Birthday was a particular issue that vexed him.

La Famiglia has held a licence to serve in the garden until midnight for decades. Despite this, it agreed to restrict service to 11pm to appease the neighbour. The owner – Marietta Maccione – also directed a member of staff to act as ‘Noise Marshall’ every night, telling customers to quieten down if things became too rowdy.

The elegant garden room of 80 covers that is at the centre of the row

Those two measures hit profits considerably, but the compromise was not enough and complaints continued. Last October, the restaurant even went to the extraordinary extent of banning the singing of Happy Birthday – insisting that guests move into the front area if they wanted to sing that tune.

Restaurant managers preferred not to issue a statement to The Citizen, but a local with knowledge of the situation revealed:  “The complaining got ridiculous. No matter what the restaurant did to keep him happy, this man kept coming back with more issues and gripes. Even closing earlier and stopping anyone singing Happy Birthday was not enough.”

The neighbour started reporting his complaints to the council and began demanding that the garden close at 9pm Monday to Saturday and by 8pm on Sundays. His complaints have now triggered a licence review. On 7th July RBKC served a public notice announcing a review will be held by the Licensing Panel on the grounds of ‘Prevention of Public Nuisance and Protection of Children from harm’.

The notice is now in the window at La Famiglia, but The Citizen has redacted the complainant’s name to protect his privacy. His identity will become more public once the papers for the hearing are finalised and published by the council on its website.

It has become clear that if a stringent change in the licence such as closing the garden at 9pm comes into force it would have serious consequences for La Famiglia. It is understood that this would mean it losing the option of a “second sitting”. Takings would be affected so sharply that as much as 50% of its 60 staff could face being laid off, or having reduced hours. Fewer customers will also have a dramatic impact on a network of local suppliers who provide fresh produce and goods to the restaurant.

A local added: “If this man wins and the council changes the licence to close the garden at 9pm, it will be catastrophic for La Famiglia. The hospitality business is in a fragile state generally and such a restriction on a small family restaurant would make the entire operation unviable. It will cost a fortune in lost revenue and so many of the loyal staff will lose their jobs.

“It all feels so unfair. The flat where the man lives was extended by its landlord owner in the mid-1990s, which is the reason why it is so close to the garden. That was the choice of the freeholder, with full knowledge that La Famiglia had a dining room there.

“The people who run the restaurant have always been very respectful of their neighbours. In all these decades there have never been any complaints or disputes. Everyone loves the restaurant. It is an iconic character of Chelsea. The family who live right next door have raised their children here and have never had a bad word to say about the garden and its noise. This man is renting a flat and was here for only a short time before he started complaining and he has not stopped ever since. He is determined to cause chaos for La Famiglia.”

RBKC states that postal letters or emails (to licensing@rbkc.gov.uk) concerning the review must be lodged by 4th August. This has prompted a flurry of notes from supporters. The Citizen understand that many celebrities and notable locals have emailed the Licensing Authority to emphasise that they have eaten in the garden room over many years and can vouch for it always being orderly and well run by staff.

The Citizen has asked La Famiglia for comment and will be contacting the neighbour.

Redacted public notice from the council has been placed in La Famiglia’s window

Legendary La Famiglia founder Alvaro Maccioni and his daughter Marietta, the current owner

Richard Eden of the Daily Mail has picked up on The Citizen’s exclusive story

The scene…

For more than a century Stanley Studios in Park Walk has provided creative workspace for generations of artists, including celebrated sculptor Dame Elizabeth Frink. Now neighbours fear one of the borough’s important reminders of its artistic heritage could disappear forever.

Residents living in Stanley Mansions in Park Walk and The Sandhills in Limerston Street that flank the studios have launched a determined fight against the scheme, arguing it would destroy valuable artists’ workspace, overshadow neighbouring homes and erode their privacy while doing little to preserve Chelsea’s unique character.

They are urging Kensington and Chelsea Council to reject what they describe as a “ruinous development” in favour of a heritage-led scheme that would protect the studios while allowing sensitive redevelopment.

Stanley Studios now

The proposal by Squire & Partners would convert the Victorian complex into two three-bedroom and three four-bedroom houses. The architects say it would preserve the historic façade and carry Stanley Studios “into the next century with renewed purpose”.

Resident Philip Challinor said: “This is not intended to be a ‘not in my back yard’ campaign. Chelsea has to evolve and new homes are needed. The real question is whether we can find a more responsible way of shaping change.”

How the studios would look if they developed into five townhouses

One of the biggest flashpoints is the proposal to create five new rear doors opening onto The Sandhills estate is that they back directly into the studios. Residents there say that little, if any, consideration has been given to how the new scheme negatively impacts upon their homes.

Residents say the doors, described in the plans as fire exits, would destroy long-established communal planting beds whilst also destroying their privacy and creating serious security concerns.

One resident told The Citizen: “Those beds were put in by the council years ago so residents could grow vegetables and flowers. Now they will be destroyed to make way for what are described as fire exits.

“We believe they are really back doors to the new houses. They will invade what little quiet garden space we have left. It is a terrible and thoughtless plan.”

The entrance in Park Walk

Leaseholder Mussie Mulugheta said: “My lease specifically gives us the right to use the communal garden, but this application completely ignores that.

“They are not building social housing or a major community development. They are building five private houses that will affect a great many people without providing any real benefit.”

Mr Mulugheta also criticised the consultation process. “My biggest concern is security. Removing the existing wall to create access at the rear would leave residents feeling far more vulnerable.

“We also received very little notification about the application and have had to work hard to make sure our neighbours even knew what was being proposed.”

Plans are to create an exit through the side wall to the rear of the houses

Residents argue the council’s statutory consultation failed to reach many of those most affected because the planning notice was displayed in Park Walk while the main entrances to The Sandhills are in Limerston Street and Winterton Place.

They also argue the scheme would remove protected creative workspace and are urging the council to back an alternative that would retain artists’ studios alongside new homes.

Squire & Partners say the plans have been shaped by community feedback and would preserve key features of the Victorian complex, including its original 1890s façade and distinctive double-height studio spaces, while avoiding the need for a basement excavation.

A Kensington and Chelsea Council spokesperson told The Citizen: “As with all planning applications, we have followed a defined consultation process to ensure that anyone interested in the proposal for Stanley Studios can comment and that all relevant considerations are taken into account.

“This includes publishing site and press notices. We have received 86 comments regarding the application, which gives us confidence that local people are aware of the plans and have been able to make their views known. Each of the comments received will be carefully considered before any decision is made, including any concerns raised about the information submitted with the application.”

The Chelsea Citizen approached both the landlord and Squire & Partners for comment but had received no response by the time of publication.

The future of one of Chelsea’s last purpose-built artists’ studio complexes will now rest with Kensington and Chelsea’s planning committee.

View the planning application HERE

A few of the many Objection letters to the council

Amazon-owned Whole Foods, which opened on the King’s Road in March 2025, has been at loggerheads with residents whose homes back onto the store for more than eight months.

Residents in Elystan Place – particularly those in a block of flats called Thackeray Court that borders the entrance – say deliveries by HGVs and vans have turned their quiet one-way back street into a daily ordeal of noise, congestion and disruption.

Often, their early mornings are interrupted by loud beeping from lorries reversing at a snail’s pace towards a downward slip road that leads to the basement loading bay for the supermarket.

Whole Foods before it opened last year

“That someone hasn’t been killed is a miracle,” one resident told The Citizen. “It’s not safe. Where else in London are you seeing articulated lorries driving down tiny, narrow one-way streets?

“They are enormous. They are damaging our buildings, hitting lamp posts and mounting the pavement. The drivers often get out and leave their engines running whilst they work out how to reverse into the access point. It is ruining our lives around here. Please, someone help make it stop!”

The problems stem from the fact that deliveries cannot be made at the front of the King’s Road store because zig-zag markings protecting the nearby Zebra crossing must be kept clear. Instead, lorries and delivery vans use the narrow Elystan Place to access the supermarket’s basement.

Drivers must reverse into the slip road and down the slope because it is too difficult and dangerous to reverse OUT and back up the slope. Automatic beeping comes on whenever the lorries reverse, which adds to the disturbance for residents. This is compounded by idling engines which produce air pollution. Residents say that the impact on their lives has been relentless and “an unending nightmare”. “There’s going to be a serious accident here one day and Whole Foods will be accountable,” said one despairing homeowner at Thackeray Court.

Road route down Elystan Place to rear entrance to Whole Foods

Among concerns raised are the safety of pedestrians and cyclists sharing the narrow street with large delivery vehicles, damage to buildings and street furniture, and items allegedly falling from lorries onto the pavement.

Residents also claim the store receives up to 30 deliveries a day, including around five by vehicles more than 10 metres long, which struggle to negotiate the street safely.

“No one recognised how successful the shop would be when they were agreeing the delivery schedule with the Council,” said another resident. “It’s turned out to be a gold mine – but this has meant more and more deliveries.”

Whole Foods was served with a Breach of Condition Notice by the Council on April 20th this year following alleged breaches of its Delivery and Service Management Plan, which governs how deliveries should be carried out. The 28-day compliance period expired on May 18th.

Failure to comply with the notice is a criminal offence and, if the Council concludes there is sufficient evidence, it has the power to prosecute. Any fine imposed by the courts is – in theory – unlimited.

The Breach of Condition Notice focused on three alleged failings: multiple delivery vehicles arriving at the same time and obstructing the highway, vehicles failing to reverse correctly into the service yard before unloading, and drivers wheeling pallets along the public highway.

Whole Foods insists it has responded to the Council’s concerns and said in a statement: “We take our responsibility to our neighbours seriously. We’ve been working closely with the local authority to address delivery concerns raised by nearby residents. We’ve made changes to our delivery scheduling and logistics, and we’ll continue to refine our operations. We’re committed to being a good neighbour in Chelsea.”

A RBKC Council spokesman said: “We have been meeting regularly with Whole Foods, reviewing evidence from residents, and requiring the store to take steps to improve how deliveries are managed. We are also increasing monitoring in the area and where concerns relate to dangerous driving, we will continue to liaise with the police, who are responsible for enforcing road traffic offences.”

The Council has rejected suggestions that the zebra crossing on the King’s Road could simply be moved to create more delivery space. “The zebra crossing links directly to a public space and affords access to the supermarket on foot, and it is also a parallel crossing that cyclists can use which forms part of a designated cycleway.

“It’s effectively a choice between servicing on a busy high street with pedestrians, cyclists and several bus routes, or servicing off-street within a purpose-built loading bay, so the latter is the preferred option.”

No further enforcement action has yet been taken following the Breach of Condition Notice while the Council continues discussions with all parties and monitors the situation. Whole Foods has also stationed a traffic control marshal at the rear service area to oversee deliveries and prevent vehicles arriving before 8am.

Residents, however, say they will only be satisfied when a permanent – and more peaceful – delivery solution is found.

Battle lines were drawn after Conservative Cllr. Campbell wrote to residents’ associations last week claiming 53% of properties in the borough could be affected by the proposed annual levy on homes worth more than £2 million — a story The Citizen exclusively revealed.

In an astonishing broadside, Labour MP Mr Powell then accused the Council Leaderof using a “false” figure by confusing council tax bands with actual property values.

He stormed: “RBKC have once again shown they either can’t count or are prepared to lie to their residents for political purposes.

“Their claim that 53% of properties in the Borough will be affected by the new high value property tax surcharge is entirely false scare mongering.”

As background to the row, the Labour Government is proposing an annual surcharge on residential properties valued at more than £2 million and Mr Powell accepts that 53% of homes in Kensington and Chelsea do fall within the top three council tax bands — a genuine council tax statistic.

But, he argues, that is not the same as saying those homes are worth more than £2 million – many Band F, G and H properties fall below that threshold and therefore would not be liable for the surcharge.

The MP also points to Land Registry sales data which, he says, shows only around 15% of properties sold in recent years changed hands for between £2 million and £5 million, suggesting only around one in five properties would be affected.

He described Cllr Campbell’s claim as being “wrong by a factor of 150%” and accused the Conservatives of exaggerating the impact of the proposed tax to alarm residents.

Colville ward Cllr. Jack Reason (Labour and Co-operative) also waded into the row and challenged Cllr. Campbell’s figures. Responding to a post on Instagram by The Citizen flagging up its story, he wrote: “This isn’t an accurate analysis of the homes that would be affected by this surcharge.”

The Citizen asked Cllr Campbell to address Mr Powell’s central allegation that the Council had wrongly conflated the proportion of homes in the top three council tax bands with the proportion worth more than £2 million. Sidestepping that specific point, the Council Leader defended the council’s methodology.

She said: “Of course the local Labour MPs want to play down the impact of the Labour Mansion Tax. However, our estimate is based on information and guidance provided by their government. It outlines the properties most likely to be impacted in April 2028 when this regressive new system is likely to be brought in.

“Our residents would like to see their local representatives campaign against this punitive tax, not quibble over the number of homes it’s likely to hit. I believe our estimate is correct, based on all the information to hand, and we will be publishing our figures and how we got to them on our website in the coming days.

“Rather than lying, or hiding the truth, we are being completely open and transparent. We will continue to stand up for residents, providing updates to help them understand what is being proposed.”

The war of words shows no sign of cooling. A furious Mr Powell hit back: “Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on fake letters, the Council leadership should focus on sorting out their painfully slow response to the cyber attack and get their systems fully back up and running, so residents can engage again with their local authority on planning, licensing and council tax administration.”

To be continued…!

Cllr Campbell’s letter

Campbell has sent out an unprecedented letter to the Chairs of Residents Associations across the borough inciting them to ask their members to object to the so-called High Value Council Tax Surcharge. The letter has been leaked to The Citizen and we publish it in full below.

In it, Campbell says that she opposes the tax in “the strongest possible terms” because it is masquerading as a “council tax surcharge” when in fact all funds raised will go to the national welfare programme across the UK and NOT into local services.

She warns that around 50% of homes in the borough valued at around £2m could be snared in the tax that will charge as much as £7,500 per year – even if you are a low earner.

Warning that some homeowners could be forced to sell their properties to meet the bill, Campbell urges residents to join the fight by lobbying ministers and MPs before the proposals become law.

She urges residents to join her by voicing their anger and opposition via email to: hvcts@communities.gov.uk.

The Chelsea Citizen is also welcoming comments from residents – especially from those who support the new tax and can offer educated arguments for it. Email: editor@thechelseacitizen.com.

Campbell’s battle cry letter

A six-week public consultation has been launched to shape the authority’s new Council Plan, which will set spending and policy priorities through to 2030.

The exercise comes against a backdrop of mounting financial pressure, with the council saying it has lost more than £100 million in funding because of central government cuts while demand for services continues to rise – and costs more.

Residents have until Sunday, 9th August to complete an online survey, which takes about 10 minutes.

The feedback will help shape the final Council Plan, which will be published in the autumn.

Council leader Cllr Elizabeth Campbell said: “Our new Council Plan will be central to everything we do over the next four years, including how we work with partners and the community. We want this plan to be shaped by our residents right from the outset.

“We were elected to get the basics done well, deliver clean streets and amazing spaces, ensure value for money and offer accessible services with proper support. But we are facing a £108 million gap in our budget due to central Government cuts, so we have difficult choices to make.

“This consultation will help us establish where our priorities lie, where the difficult decisions are and how we will take them. I urge as many people as possible to take part. We need to hear from you.”

As well as identifying spending priorities, the consultation asks residents to help draw up a new Resident Pact, setting out what the council promises to deliver and what it expects from residents in return.

Once the consultation closes, the council says it will publish a summary of the responses and explain how public feedback has influenced the final plan.

Start the survey here

For further information email  CouncilPlan@rbkc.gov.uk.

The investment will see the pool close from 12th July until November 2026 as contractors carry out extensive improvement works designed to secure the building’s future for generations to come.

Originally opened in April 1907, the Chelsea Manor Street pool is one of the area’s longest-standing public leisure facilities. The refurbishment will include replacing the roof, resurfacing the main pool and the smaller learning pool for beginners, and reshaping the main pool to create a more flexible layout. The depth will also be standardised to a gradient of between one and 1.8 metres, making it better suited to swimming lessons and a wider range of users.

The Council says the project will also significantly improve the building’s energy efficiency, reducing both water and energy consumption while retaining the pool’s historic character.

Cllr Josh Rendall, lead member for leisure facilities, said: “This historic pool has been in use for 119 years, making it an important part of the borough’s history, as well as a vital health and fitness facility for Chelsea.

“This investment protects a valued heritage asset, suiting it to the needs of residents in 2026, and boosting its energy efficiency so that it can be enjoyed for decades to come.”

The refurbishment is being delivered by the Council in partnership with leisure operator GLL. The £1.3 million scheme is being funded through Section 106 developer contributions alongside grant funding.

The Council says the timing of the closure has been chosen to minimise disruption to pool users and school bookings. During the works, GLL members will be able to use alternative leisure centres, both locally and in other areas of the country.

The project forms part of the Council’s wider plans to invest in healthier communities, improve the efficiency of public buildings and protect the borough’s historic assets.

The Borough’s new First Citizen swept into the chamber in a fetching baby-blue cotton, calf-length dress, the ancient gold mayoral chain resting across her shoulders like something borrowed from the Crown Jewels. 

Outside, London was slowly roasting. They were calling it the hottest day on record. Inside, democracy was being conducted in more comfortable, cooler surroundings.

The Lady Mayor’s opening words were not about civic duty, constitutional propriety or the burdens of office.

“Thank you for the lovely air conditioning!” she purred. A woman after the public’s heart.

Raised on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, where confidence is practically compulsory, Evans carries herself with an easy, Mid-Atlantic burr. Beside her sat RBKC chief executive Maxine Holdsworth, part constitutional adviser, part stage manager, part horse whisperer, gently steering the newcomer through the mysteries of standing orders and municipal etiquette.

Then came the speeches.

Conservative council leader Elizabeth Campbell (Royal Hospital) was still basking in the warm afterglow of May’s local election triumph, in which the Tories tightened their already formidable grip on the borough. Sporting her trademark horn-rimmed spectacles, the Conservatives’ indefatigable head girl could scarcely conceal her satisfaction.

She reminded members that Labour’s share of the vote in North Kensington had fallen by twelve percentage points. “Our residents realise this Labour government isn’t for them, and the Labour group on this council are no better,” she declared.

One almost felt sympathy for the 13 members of the Labour group. Facing Kensington’s Conservative benches is rather like attending a vegan conference inside Smithfield Market. However eloquently one pleads for lentils, the room remains stubbornly devoted to beef.

Labour leader Monica Press (Colville) was widely expected to unleash a retaliatory broadside. Instead she gently holstered the artillery before it had even been loaded. “I’ve dealt with the key issues around the election,” she announced. “So I’m not going to go there tonight.”

Instead, she pivoted towards climate change, a subject considerably safer than reopening the electoral wounds.

By Item No.9, the Lady Mayor had settled comfortably into the chair. Councillors turned to the Community Safety Plan, one of those worthy documents that attempts to tame society’s more unpleasant habits through committees, partnerships and determined optimism.

Drug-related crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls featured prominently. The proposed remedies included tougher action against drug dealing, stronger enforcement against persistent antisocial behaviour and greater support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.

The proposals found support from Conservative Johnny Thalassites (Holland) and newly elected Labour councillor Jack Reason (Colville), delivering his maiden speech.

Reason has the appearance of an industrious sixth-form prefect who accidentally wandered into local government and discovered he rather enjoys it there. Fresh-faced, meticulously prepared, he spoke with the quiet confidence of someone who had read every appendix, annex and footnote before breakfast.

Two hours in, proceedings drifted into that strange municipal twilight where concentration begins to wilt. Four Conservatives slipped discreetly out for “urgent consultations with the facilities”. Their temporary absence encouraged Labour’s Claire Simmons (Notting Dale), representing the self-styled Republic of North Kensington, to introduce a motion urging the council to embrace the doctrine of “Do No Harm”.

It was one of those propositions so impeccably virtuous that voting against it risked placing one somewhere between Attila the Hun on a particularly irritable afternoon and the fellow who proof-read Hitler’s speeches.

After Grenfell, residents understandably want a council that listens, learns and avoids compounding mistakes. On that principle there was broad agreement. The difficulty lay not in the sentiment but in the prose.

Simmons’s motion wandered enthusiastically through the vocabularies of medicine, international diplomacy and postgraduate ethics seminars. “Non-maleficence” made several appearances. It is not a word frequently heard echoing around Kensington Town Hall and one sensed more than a few councillors mentally reaching for an Oxford English Dictionary.

The Conservatives remained unimpressed. Veteran councillor Kim Taylor-Smith (Stanley) dismissed “Do No Harm” as “a slogan, not a policy.”

The motion disappeared beneath the Conservative voting machine with all the inevitability of a snowball entering a blast furnace.

The evening’s final act addressed one of modern Kensington’s greatest civic afflictions: abandoned hire bicycles. Cllr. Greg Hammond’s (Courtfield) motion generously acknowledged that Lime and Forest bikes are cheap, convenient and widely appreciated.

They also possess the extraordinary ability to finish almost every journey lying sideways across the pavement like wounded gazelles abandoned on the Serengeti.

The Conservatives praised the council’s efforts to herd these mechanical tumbleweeds into designated parking bays, but argued Whitehall should grant tougher enforcement powers. More pressure on City Hall, heavier penalties for operators and greater confiscation powers for council officers all featured prominently.

The debate produced another maiden speech, this time from Conservative newcomer, the exotically named: Marc Goldfinger (Norland).

“We must use e-bikes properly and within reason. We need rules,” he observed.

Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Holland Park roundabout cycle scheme received its customary drubbing, while the Metropolitan Police were gently reminded that red traffic lights apply to cyclists every bit as much as they do to motorists.

By half past nine, even the hardiest veterans were beginning to wilt. After so much hot air, even the air conditioning was struggling to do its job.

The Lady Mayor finally drew proceedings to a close before disappearing into the Mayor’s Parlour, accompanied by RBKC’s equivalent of Black Rod, perhaps in search of something restorative after three hours of municipal combat.

I caught her before she escaped.

“How did your first council meeting go?”

“Excellently,” she beamed. “Everyone got on very well. They all behaved themselves.”

Then, with the optimism peculiar to newly elected mayors, she added:

“We have a wonderful council.”

Photos by Louis Palmer

Dangerously abandoned bikes which posed immediate danger or significant disruption were seized in the Council’s attempt to preserve the accessibility and safety of pavements and roads. That action has generated £210,000 in fines that is already in the council’s bank.

A forest of impounded Lime bikes

Cllr Johnny Thalassites (Holland ward), Lead Member for Resident Services, Planning and Enforcement, said: “Rental e-bikes have an important role to play in helping Londoners get around, but that cannot come at the expense of safe, accessible streets.

“Our officers have done a fantastic job in removing 2,600 e-bikes, and it sends a very clear message – park in a bay, or we’ll take it away. If bikes are dumped across pavements, blocking crossings or creating a danger for residents and road users, we will take action.”

As one of the first boroughs to introduce parking bays in 2023 to tackle the issue, RBKC is home to 245 rental e-bike parking spaces, 185 of which are marked and 60 are virtual bays visible via provider apps.

During the recovery operation, rental operators were charged more than £210,000 in seizure, storage and release fees, with all income reinvested into the service to support on-going enforcement activity.

Rental e-bike operator Lime accounted for the majority of seized bikes. Here is the full breakdown of enforcement action since January 2025:

• 1,624 e-bikes from Lime
• 787 from Human Forest
• 61 from Voi
• 44 from Bolt

The total fees charged to each firm:

• £143,890.70 to Lime
• £58,017.35 to Human Forest
• £4,560.30 to Voi
• £3,630.35 to Bolt

Cllr Thalassites added: “We also need operators to do their bit by clearing obstructions quickly, covering the cost when we have to intervene, and doing more to encourage considerate rider behaviour.”

According to an agreement between operators and the Council, parked rental e-bikes which do not meet certain stipulations under section 149(2) of the Highways Act, or bikes parked outside of a bay, are to be reported to operators who then have upto six hours to remove it.

Enforcement action in progress

In a humiliating defeat for RBKC, the Planning Inspectorate threw out the council’s enforcement case against Dr Michael Young and quashed the legal notice ordering him to tear the structure down.

The extraordinary ruling centred on a timber privacy screen on the roof terrace of Dr Young’s home in Victoria Gardens, Notting Hill. RBKC officers insisted the screen was unlawful and spent years demanding it be removed.

The wooden terrace structure

But when the case finally reached a government planning inspector, the council’s entire argument collapsed. The inspector found the timber screen had already been shown on approved planning drawings that had been signed off by RBKC in 2019, 2022 and 2023.

In the most devastating line of the ruling, Inspector J Whitfield concluded: “the alleged breach of planning control… does not constitute a breach of planning control.” In simple terms: the council tried to prosecute a planning breach that did not exist.

Dr Young told The Citizen: “This was never a grey area. The council simply failed to read its own planning permissions properly. They pursued me for two-and-a-half years on a false basis. They were wrong from day one.”

Dr Michael Young ©Photo: Michael Young

The case is potentially a major embarrassment for RBKC because an internal council email seen by The Citizen suggests that planning officers had disliked the roof terrace arrangement from the beginning.

In one message, an officer warned the terrace could lead to “unsightly rooftop structures”. Yet despite those concerns, RBKC still issued planning permissions with drawings showing the timber screening and trellis features that were later targeted by enforcement officers.

The affair raises serious questions over whether different parts of the council were even reading from the same script. Planning officers are separate from councillors sitting on planning committees — but once permissions are formally granted and approved drawings signed off, they become legally binding documents.

The inspector found those approved drawings clearly showed the screen. RBKC nevertheless pressed ahead with enforcement action.

Dr Young says the battle cost him nearly £10,000 in legal, planning and architectural fees — money the council has refused to repay. The controversy has also spread far beyond the original planning row.

Dr Young alleges RBKC repeatedly failed to comply with Freedom of Information and Data Subject Access Request deadlines during his attempts to obtain internal documents about the case.

Correspondence seen by The Citizen shows he complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office after delays by the authority.

He claims one council response was dated 24th April but was not actually sent until four days later — after intervention by the ICO. Dr Young also says his formal complaints to the council have gone unanswered. The row even drew in local MP Joe Powell, who is understood to have written repeatedly to RBKC seeking intervention.

The council’s handling of the affair now raises uncomfortable questions:

Why did RBKC pursue enforcement for years against something already shown on approved plans? How much taxpayer money was spent? Did legal officers ever review the permissions properly? And has anybody inside the council been held accountable?

Dr Young told The Citizen: “How can any resident trust the council’s planning decisions when they cannot even read their own approvals? If they got this wrong for two-and-a-half years, what else are they getting wrong?”

A spokesperson for Kensington and Chelsea Council said: “We investigated reports of an unauthorised timber screen and served an enforcement notice after determining the structure breached Local Plan policy. Following an appeal, the Planning Inspectorate reached a different conclusion. The Council accepts the decision and the enforcement case will now be closed.”

Voice of the Citizen: Read Dr Young’s blistering retort to the Council’s statement

‘The Council’s mistake cost me nearly £10,000. Do you know what I could have bought with that money? A wheelchair for my father. He has dementia. He cannot walk. That money could have given him dignity, mobility, a bit of freedom. Instead, it went to lawyers, architects and planning consultants. The Council sees a file to close. I see my father’s mobility taken away from him.’

©Photos: Rob McGibbon/The Chelsea Citizen