A NEIGHBOUR is demanding a couple tear down their upstairs floor made of glass because it means they can see into his house.
Howard Davis has launched a High Court battle against fashion power couple Oliver and Tamara Benjamin over their dream home renovations at an exclusive gated development in Surrey.
Supplied by Champion NewsOliver and Tamara Benjamin’s Surrey home before they began renovations[/caption]
Supplied by Champion NewsOliver Benjamin has a tailor’s shop near St Paul’s Cathedral[/caption]
Supplied by Champion NewsWife Tamara works for Chinese-owned fashion giant Shein[/caption]
Mr Davis, chairman of Prince Harry‘s former polo club, has complained about losing “360 degree privacy” after his neighbours built a first floor glass cube sunroom.
He and other neighbours say it has proved to be far larger than earlier plans suggested, at the property in Petersham, Richmond-upon-Thames.
Now a judge at London‘s High Court has urged both sides to put their competing cases within the next month.
High-end city tailor Mr Benjamin, based near St Paul’s Cathedral, and his wife Tamara, a boss at Chinese-owned online fashion giant Shein, bought their £2million home in 2014 and began renovations.
They created an architect-designed space based mainly on the ground floor but with a first-storey sunroom finished in 2017.
But Mr Davis says the modern rebuild is “obtrusive, intrusive, out of character and proportion”.
The house is within the exclusive Rutland Lodge Estate, next to Grade II-listen Rutland Lodge – a mansion house dating back to the 17th century.
Mr Davis lives in one of four apartments within Rutland Lodge and is among the directors of estate’s management company.
The Benjamins own the freehold of their own home but the management company has the benefit of restrictive covenants covering not only Rutland Lodge but also other properties on the land.
Company directors can veto applications for alterations they deem undesirable.
They did initially agree in principle to the redevelopment plans put forward in 2015 by Mr and Mrs Benjamin, which included a first floor sunroom.
By the time they were finally officially approved the following year, however, the glass sun room had been made larger and a roof terrace was added, the court heard.
Despite work being finished six years ago a legal battle has dragged on, with Mr Davis demanding the rebuild be taken down.
He described the new first floor development as “obtrusive, intrusive out of character and proportion” in an objection to Richmond Borough Council.
He said: “The resultant loss of 360 degree privacy is entirely obvious and the impact on Rutland Lodge and Petersham in the round visually damaging.”
He told of “a major increase in overlooking of the amenity spaces” surrounding the couple’s home, affecting up to 14 other properties.
He and the management company’s other directors last year launched a lawsuit, seeking to force the Benjamins to demolish the sunroom and terrace and rebuild it smaller.
CHANGE OF PLANS ‘NOT MINOR’
In papers lodged with the High Court, theit barrister Ashley Bowes said the final 2016 plan including the larger sunroom and roof terrace would have been blocked by invoking the restrictive covenants.
He insisted the directors were unaware the 2015 plan had been altered, though accepted that in May 2016 Mr Davis initialled each page of the new document provided.
Mr Bowes added that neither Mr Davis nor any other director of the claimant realised the 2016 permission had been inserted by the defendants into the schedule of the licence.
He said differences between the 2015 and 2016 permissions “were not minor in nature” and it would have been “reasonable” for the company to refuse to allow the work to go ahead.
The lawsuit accuses the couple of “fraudulent misrepresentation in relation to the process of obtaining the licence” or alternatively a “negligent or innocent misrepresenting which nevertheless should lead to the court granting permission to rescind the licence”.
The company asked for an injunction compelling the defendants to tear down the works which went beyond the 2015 plans or else provide damages as an alternative.
In the couple’s defence to the action, their barrister Elizabeth Fitzgerald accepted the sunroom was bigger in the 2016 permission.
But she said they were “far less extensive alterations” to the house than under a previous planning permission, which had given the green light for total demolition and the excavation of a basement.
She denied there were major differences between the 2015 and 2016 designs and said the couple’s failure to mention the bigger works to the directors was not a “deliberate omission.”
She added: “Mr Davis indicated that he had reviewed the draft licence on several occasions.
“On 5 May 2016, when the licence was signed by the claimant, Mr Davis initialed each page, thereby indicating that he had read each page carefully prior to signing.”
And she told the court: “It would be unduly oppressive to the defendants to grant an injunction in the terms sought by the claimant.”
The couple also lodged a counter-claim, complaining that the freeholders’ company wrongfully refused them permission for further building works after a row over service charge fees.
The judge, Master James Brightwell, told the court the two sides continue to disagree and want to provide new evidence.
Ordering the parties to set out their cases within a month, adding: “The parties’ competing cases need to be put before the court and the court needs to make a decision.”
The case will return at a later date.
Supplied by Champion NewsThe couple’s new first floor sunroom has prompted protests[/caption]
Supplied by Champion NewsA lawsuit has been launched by neighbours in nearby mansion Rutland Lodge[/caption] Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
