The Thompson siblings, Louise and Sam, stars of the reality show Made in Chelsea, find themselves embroiled in a planning dispute with the Hammersmith and Fulham Council over unauthorized renovations to their adjacent multi-million-pound properties. The core issue revolves around breaches of planning regulations, specifically concerning the construction of front boundary walls exceeding permissible heights. The council has issued enforcement notices to both siblings, demanding rectification of the violations. This escalating situation stems from a joint renovation project undertaken by Louise and Sam approximately four years ago. While the bulk of their ambitious plans received council approval, the construction of their front boundary walls became a point of contention.
The original renovation project, documented extensively on Sam’s Instagram page dedicated to the project, encompassed significant alterations to both properties. Approved plans included side and rear extensions, roof lights, replacement windows, and bi-folding patio doors. Louise further extended her basement and incorporated air conditioning. The project, however, encountered delays due to concerns about potential land contamination, necessitating precautionary measures for construction workers. Despite these setbacks, the renovations eventually reached completion, resulting in impressive transformations, including basement cinemas in both homes (Louise’s with a gym, Sam’s with a bar), extended kitchen/diner areas opening onto their respective gardens, and redesigned bedroom and bathroom layouts.
Despite the apparent success of the renovation project, the siblings ran afoul of planning regulations concerning the height of their front boundary walls. Situated in a conservation area, both properties are subject to stricter planning controls, particularly regarding the preservation of the area’s character. The siblings erected nearly two-meter-high fences at the front of their homes without obtaining the necessary planning permissions. This contravened local regulations, leading to the issuance of enforcement notices. The council deemed these structures “oppressive” and out of keeping with the traditional low boundary treatments characteristic of the conservation area.
The enforcement notice served to Louise specifically addressed the brick wall and timber gate erected at the front boundary of her property. The council deemed the 1.83-meter high structure a breach of planning regulations, and ordered its reduction to a height below one meter. While the specific details of Sam’s violation haven’t been publicly disclosed by the council, he is currently appealing an enforcement notice issued against him to the Planning Inspectorate. This suggests a similar issue with boundary wall height or design. The discrepancy in publicly available information could be due to the ongoing appeal process, which may restrict the release of specific details until a final decision is reached.
The siblings’ properties, acquired several years apart, have significantly appreciated in value. Initially purchased for £1.275 million and £1.75 million respectively, both homes are now estimated to be worth approximately £2.5 million each. This substantial investment underscores the significance of the planning dispute, as the required alterations, while seemingly minor, represent compliance with regulations that aim to preserve the character of the conservation area. The siblings’ decision to undertake a joint renovation project likely stemmed from a desire to create cohesive and complementary aesthetics for their adjacent properties. However, their failure to secure proper permissions for the boundary walls has led to an unexpected and potentially costly legal battle.
This case highlights the crucial importance of adhering to planning regulations, particularly in conservation areas. Even seemingly minor deviations, such as the height of a boundary wall, can result in enforcement action and costly rectifications. While the Thompson siblings embarked on an extensive renovation project that largely complied with regulations, their oversight regarding the boundary walls has overshadowed their efforts and resulted in an ongoing dispute with the local council. The situation serves as a reminder that meticulous attention to detail and adherence to all planning requirements are essential, regardless of the scale or complexity of a renovation project.
