Sections

• (1) Planning applications - Penthouse flat
• (2) Planning applications - Infill of lightwell on four floors
• (3) 'Get lost' from Kensington and Chelsea Planning department - endorsed by the Local Government Ombudsman

(1) Planning applications - Penthouse flat

Through KSR Architects, 'Steel Services' (see Advisors to Jefferson House , Headlessors , Owners identity , Directorships ) made a planning application on 13 November 2001 (Ref PP/01/2523) for the

"erection of a new residential penthouse apartment at main roof level" .

A previous application had been made on 18 September 1998 (TP98-1773). (The Land Registry recorded Steel Services ownership at 22 November 1996)

In my view, this planning application was a key milestone in the game plan, as it was used as a threat in the 13 December 2000 Notices by Landlord (see Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000 )

"The property is also sold subject to the burden of ongoing litigation.

The landlord has been served with an application for an injunction seeking to restrain the landlord from implementing the current planning permission (TP/98/1773), and damages" .

It was emphasised by Mr Andrew Ladsky in his 25 January 2001 letter to me (and other leaseholders)

"...series of complex and costly obligations.

...you should also consider the further payment to the landlord detailed in his offer letter.

...the tenants must purchase the property with the burden of ongoing litigation which has serious implications both in terms of the costs and damages that could flow.

The litigation could impose. a serious financial burden which is yet to be determined" .

In his "Expert Witness" report to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (part of the English legal system), dated 13 December 2002 , Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, wrote under Section 4 -1.4 - "I am able to categorically state that the Specification makes NO provisions for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat"

In fact, a Planning Application Notice, dated 12 December 2003 states

"Design modifications to existing approved planning scheme for a new penthouse apartment to be constructed at roof level for PP/01/2523"  

If there was no intention to build an extra floor then, why were two applications made, followed by an application for "design modifications" ?

The answer: as soon as the works started, so did the construction of the penthouse flat - See also Photo gallery

Jefferson House July 2002

Jefferson House September 2005

Please note that in the summary of his February 2002 "condition survey", Mr Gale wrote:

"...the roof coverings will need to be replaced and provisions made... to cover any additional works which may become apparent."   ( NB: Such as the 'incidental' cost of building a penthouse flat?)

"...the roof had exceeded [its] modern life span" (Oh! dear!)

See also the February 2002 photographs taken by Mr Gale of the back of Jefferson House (2.4MB) at the time he undertook the "condition survey" - and compare with the above photograph I took in September 2005.

And note his assessment of the "defects" and recommended "remedies" in his February 2002 "condition survey" v. the outcome of the works - including in this summary slide.

Following Mr Brian Gale's survery, Ms Hathaway, MRICS, wrote:

• 26 March 2002 : "Your suggestion that the appointment of professional advisors is in any way connected with any planning application is incorrect. We can assure you that the survey is not in connection with any planning application"

• In her 30 August 2002 reply to my 11 August 2002 letter in which I asked : "An explanation as to why works are being carried out to the roof given that a planning application to build and extra floor for a pentouse flat was granted...", Ms Hathaway wrote:

"We are informed that there is no intention to build the penthouse at the current time ...obviously any major changes would be advised to lessees"

Furthermore, consider the 4 March 2003 letter 'from Ms Hathaway' (given the style, it is more likely to be from Mr Andrew Ladsky) to Mr Brian Gale (which he supplied as part of the evidential documents during the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearings in March-April 2003):

"...regarding the proposed penthouse ...although the planning permission was granted it was subsequently found that the scheme was not a viable proposition...there are no plans to build the penthouse at the property"

Of course, Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, was backing-up the claim, as can be seen in his 14 July 2004 letter to me:

"External repair and redecoration work plus internal refurbishment of common parts"

He yet again repeated this claim in his 2 August 2004 letter to "All Lessees"

"...the proposed works to the exterior and internal comon parts of the building are due to start on 16 August 2004"

Six weeks later, at the start of the works in September 2004, in their " description of the works" , the contractors, Mansell Construction Services / Mr Brian Gale, described the works to be carried out as:

"General repair and refurbishment of the main structure of Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, to include cutting out of spalled and defective brickwork and replacing to match, replacing asphalt roofs , redecoration externally, redecoration of internal common areas, replacement of lift"

As can be seen in his letter of 19 October 2005, Mr Gale continued to misrepresent the works undertaken to the very end:

"...Mansells, the contractors undertaking the works have now completed the external redecoration"  

" The external redecoration " ?

•  How about the construction of the penthouse flat?  

•  How about the conversion of flats resulting in the addition of three other flats?

•  These works resulted in 39 flats v. 35 flats at the start of the works . (For evidence of 35 flats at the start of the works see, for example, point 7 of the 17 June 2003 report, LVT/SC/007/120/02 - ref #992 on the LVT database). (See also in the LVT section # 4 , # 6 , # 7 ; Ownership identity # 3 , # 3.1 )

Back to list

(2) Planning applications - Infill of lightwell on four floors

At the time that Mr Gale was writing his 13 December 2002 "Expert Report" to the tribunal - which includes, under point 3.04:

"I confirm that there were no inclusions within the specification or tender documentation intended to improve or enhance any future potential development of the site by either the freeholder or headlessee"

a second Planning Application , (Ref PP/02/2692), for

"Infill of lightwell on 4 No floors to create additional bedroom and bathroom space to each flat"

...had just been made days earlier on 25 November 2002 . It was communicated by the council in a notice dated 28 February 2003 .

Applications for amendments to this second Planning Application (for which the reference changed to PP/03/00429, and the description to "Amendments to existing planning consent for proposed infill of third, fourth and fifth floor lightwell" ) have likewise, also been made :  

(i) Notification dated 7 January 2004 ;  

(ii) Notification dated 19 April 2004

Hence, yet again, before the start of the works in September 2004 (see Photo gallery for evidence)

Back to list

(3) 'Get lost' from Kensington and Chelsea Planning department - endorsed by the Local Government Ombudsman

As I reported, among others, in the 27 May 2002 pack I prepared for my then Member of Parliament, Mr Michael Portillo, ahead of my meeting with him, when I and other leaseholders complained to Kensington & Chelsea Planning department that the construction of the penthouse flat was in breach of our lease the reply we received was:

"Not our problem. Get legal advice"

When I complained to the Local Government Ombudsman, I received the same reply, dated 11 July 2002:

"The terms of your lease and the breach of any covenants within that document are essentially a private matter between you and the freeholder or head lessee: they are not matters for the council to consider or deal with... a matter ultimately for the courts... "

= 'Get lost!'

In other words the typical: 'get lost' from a government department - including a similar treatment in the same council - as well as when escalating to the next level up (see Local Government Ombudsman ; Mr John Prescott # 1 and sub-points ; # 2 and sub-points)

In addition to Mr Portillo , examples of other 'get lost' from government include: the Court Service , the Land Registry , the Police, the Home Office , the Financial Services Authority, etc.

The 'do it yourself' government. How do the taxpayers' employees justify drawing a salary and related payments from the public purse?

Back to top