A celebrity architect who wants to build a modern glass-fronted house in Kensington’s millionaire’s row has lost the latest battle in her legal fight against wealthy neighbours opposed to the development.
Sophie Hicks, Tatler’s former fashion editor and mother of models Edie and Olympia Campbell, purchased a plot of land in Holland Park for £800,000 in an auction in 2011.
Ms Hicks received planning permission for her ambitious new home from Kensington and Chelsea council, but a group of seven wealthy neighbours objected to the new development.
The audacious plan involved a single storey glazed building, described in planning documents as a ‘glass cube structure’ that allowed access to two floors below street level.
Most of the building would be underground with natural light provided by skylights and ‘light wells’.
The proposal was described as ‘uncompromisingly contemporary’ and shares ‘none of the design language of the listed buildings of Holland Park’, where celebrity residents include the Beckhams, Elton John and Robbie Williams.
Former Tatler fashion editor Sophie Hicks (right with daughter Olympia) had hoped to build a cutting-edge underground house in Holland Park, but the development was contested by seven neighbours led by Maria Letemendia (left)
The architect had initially won an important High Court case which ruled that objections to the development – which is near homes owned by the Beckhams, Elton John and Robbie Williams – on the grounds of aesthetics, were invalid.
But the neighbours, spearheaded by 70-year-old Maria Letemendia, successfully overturned the decision in the Court of Appeal.
They claimed: ‘We do not all want to live next door to the creative and interesting.’
After their High Court defeat, the neighbours faced a £1 million legal bill. The Court of Appeal ruled that judge Mark Pelling QC was wrong to determine that objections on the grounds of taste were ‘unreasonable’.
Now, the case is heading back to the High Court where a judge will ‘consider whether the aesthetic and environmental reasons were reasonable’.
The neighbours, who live in a Victorian townhouse next to the proposed site, want to stop the ‘unique and unconventional’ development.
Neighbours living in the Victorian townhouse next door have won the latest round of a legal battle against celebrity architect Sophie Hicks who wants to build an ‘unconventional’ on a plot of land adjacent to their listed property
A street view design of the property shows how the entrance hall would be shaded by a tree
Award-winning architect Ms Hicks bought the land at auction in 2011 for £880,000 and her plans received approval from Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council in 2015.
She had hoped to live in the house with other members of her extended family, but the face-off with her would-be neighbours meant work could not commence.
Ms Letemendia is one of seven leaseholders in the Grade-II listed villa next to the site who own the freehold through a management company.
They believed they had the power to stop the proposal due to small print in a contract from when the site was first sold in the 1960s.
But in an earlier court clash between the neighbours and Ms Hicks in 2013, a judge ruled that their power as owners of the freehold must only be exercised ‘reasonably’.
Sophie Hicks is the former Tatler fashion editor and mother of models Edie (left) and Olympia Campbell (right)
Ms Hicks bought the land (pictured) at auction in 2011 for £880,000 and her plans received approval from Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council in 2015
Ms Hicks’s model daughters Edie (left) and Olympia (right) pictured at a party in 2017 in Northamptonshire, while plans for the development are also shown
This picture shows the disputed land in Holland Park as it is now and Ms Hicks has already been given planning permission by the council to develop it
His ruling was also ‘inconsistent’ with earlier findings made by a judge during the 2013 case, he argued.
Philip Rainey QC, for Ms Hicks, claimed in court that some of those opposed to the development are objecting, not because it will impact the price of their property, but because they no not like the look of the development.
This image shows the street view of the new building, centre, with neighbours describing the entrance hall as a ‘glowing glass box’
This image shows the layout of the home underground and how only the entrance hall will be above ground
Mr Rainey also pointed out that plans for a house which were approved by the original owner in 1968 ‘were for a large and uncompromisingly modern brick house that would today be regarded as an eyesore.’
He added that ‘the site was a piece of weed-choked wasteground that had been left derelict and overgrown for decades’ by the time Ms Hicks bought it.
‘On aesthetics, the objection was that the lessees did not want any modern architecture near … Holland Park,’ he said.
‘This was despite the fact that the house approved under the 1968 deed was a modern – and very ugly – house, and was despite the fact that [the Victorian townhouse] was already next door to a ten-story tower block from the 1960s.’
Appeal judges Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Flaux and Lord Justice Holroyde reserved their decision on the case, which they will give at a later date.
During the trial last year, Jonathan Karas QC, representing the neighbours, told Judge Pelling that an objection on grounds of aesthetic taste was entirely reasonable.
Ms Hicks’ house design ‘is modern and shares none of the design language of the listed buildings of Holland Park’, he said.
The architect had described her design for the house as ‘creative and interesting, unique, imaginative, unconventional, a bespoke and contemporary house,’ said the QC.
Mr Karas said: ‘We do not all want to live next door to the creative and interesting, or to the unique or to the contemporary or the unconventional, or next to buildings which share none of the design language of the building in which one lives, nor next to gently glowing boxes.
‘Every time one approaches or leaves [the house], one will see the glass box.
‘One can reasonably take exception to what one sees as one leaves and approaches one’s home.’
According to the Court of Appeal judgement, handed down today: ‘Following previous litigation between the parties, it has been decided that approval cannot be unreasonably withheld. The principal issue on this appeal concerns the permissible grounds upon which the freeholder may withhold consent.’
The three judges agreed that while aesthetics could be used as a reason to deny planning permission, they said they were not testing the issue and it should be decided by the Chancery division of the High Court.