Britain’s leading planning barrister has been ordered to remove a rooftop pergola from his £3 million townhouse in South Kensington after councillors rejected a retrospective planning application following a bitter dispute with neighbours.
Lord Charlie Banner, 46, and his wife, Ukrainian barrister Tetyana Nesterchuk, 43, installed the wooden structure above their Victorian gated mews home without first obtaining planning permission.
The pergola, covered with artificial greenery and festoon lights, appeared in August and prompted objections from residents in the Thurloe and Smith’s Charity conservation area, where alterations to buildings are closely controlled.
Neighbour says structure blocked her baby’s view of the sky
Georgina Shacklock, who owns a neighbouring three-storey house, said the addition blocked her young daughter’s view of the sky and dominated the outlook from every floor of her home.
She accused the couple of deliberately bypassing the planning process by building first and applying later, describing the impact on her family’s quality of life as “incredibly stressful and upsetting”.
Ms Shacklock’s name had been withheld from the council’s published objection. But Lord Banner identified her in a statutory declaration submitted in support of the retrospective application, claiming her allegations were made in bad faith.
He questioned whether she lived at the property, pointing to closed blinds and saying he had seen no signs of a baby, such as a pram. He also suggested the objections might have been motivated by opposition to his Conservative Party membership or sympathy for the Russian Government.
Lord Banner, who has worked on major planning cases including HS2 and the Heathrow expansion, wrote that he was “sure beyond reasonable doubt” that Ms Shacklock was the author of the representations. He added that he was making the declaration “in full knowledge that if it is deliberately untruthful, then as a King’s Counsel and member of the House of Lords that would be career-ending”.
Ms Shacklock rejected the allegations when she addressed the council’s planning committee. “I own the property and I live there with my husband and an eight-month-old baby,” she said. “We have not been dishonest,” she added, describing the accusation as “abhorrent” and saying it had been made without proof by a legal professional and member of the House of Lords.
A source close to her family said seven households had objected to the pergola, but that Lord Banner had singled out Ms Shacklock rather than responding to the complaints collectively. The source also insisted that she lived at the property permanently.
Councillors called the pergola “unsightly”
Lord Banner and his wife maintained that the structure was temporary and did not require planning permission. They said it provided essential shelter from the London heat for their two young children.
Agents representing the couple told councillors that the roof terrace was lawful and that the pergola was a “pure matter of health and safety for our kids”. A statement made on behalf of Mrs Nesterchuk said there were 14 letters of support and seven objections, although it claimed many of the objections appeared to have been written using artificial intelligence.
However, councillors backed a report from planning officers which described the pergola as “unsightly” and causing “unacceptable harm” to neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. The committee was told that enforcement action would follow to secure its removal. The structure stands considerably higher than nearby rooftops and is visible from front-facing windows of surrounding houses.
Support for the pergola had included a letter from Sir Lynton Crosby, who said it was a “natural and non-intrusive” addition that made sensible use of the rooftop. The dispute also involved other prominent residents, including billionaire brothers David and Simon Reuben.
Despite the refusal, the matter is not over. Mrs Nesterchuk has appealed against the council’s decision and applied for a certificate declaring that the existing pergola is lawful and can remain without planning permission.
Kensington and Chelsea Council has been asked for comment. This article will be updated if the council or the couple respond.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is also at the centre of the Grenfell Tower charging decisions — read about the Assembly motion here.
