A homeowner was dragged through a planning nightmare by the council for two-and-a-half years and forced to spend nearly £10,000 defending a roof terrace screen — only for a government inspector to rule the council had already approved it.
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
