The owner of a £1.2million Notting Hill home has won a two-year long £10,000 planning battle with a council over a wooden screen he erected to stop neighbours overlooking his roof terrace. 

Dr Michael Young was granted permission to construct the fence in 2019 after his roof's existing metal railings raised privacy concerns between himself and his neighbour. 

However, in 2024, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council (RBKC) issued Dr Young an enforcement notice instructing he take down the screen. 

Dr Young, who works in financial services, was resolute that he had permission granted for the screen's construction in 2019, and twice more through subsequent applications in 2022 and 2023. 

Yet the RBKC disagreed, leaving Dr Young embroiled in a two-and-a-half-year dispute that was eventually escalated to the government adjudicator, and cost him nearly £10,000 in fees for planning consultants, lawyers and architects.

Now, the Planning Inspectorate has ruled in favour of Dr Young, confirming the council gave permission for his screen in 2019, 2022 and 2023. 

But despite the win, Dr Young has been left disappointed in RBKC's faux pas -  describing the whole ordeal as a 'nightmare'. 

Dr Young said: 'For a quarter of a decade the council pursued me over a timber screen that their own planning files showed was approved - not once, but three times.

'The entire two-and-a-half-year nightmare could have been avoided with a cup of tea, a custard cream, and a cursory glance at their own paperwork.

'But, no. They chose enforcement notices, legal threats, and a humiliating defeat before the Planning Inspectorate.'

According to a report from the Planning Inspectorate, the council believed the screen was in breach of planning laws as it was not referenced in a planning application made by Dr Young in 2019. 

However, the agency ruled that the plans - which were approved by RBKC - did 'explicitly' reference a roof terrace and that a privacy screen could be reasonably included within that. 

The report said: '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.

'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 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.

'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 said he considers 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 the 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. 

However, Dr Young 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 spokesperson from RBKC 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.'