The neighbours of world-renowned architect Sophie Hicks have been left facing a £1 million legal bill after losing a court battle over the construction of her ultra-modern dream house.
Maria Letemendia, 69, led a fight by seven neighbours to block Ms Hicks’s plans for a cutting-edge underground home, which would have a “gently glowing” glass box at street level.
The Holland Park neighbours, who have apartments in a Victorian villa, objected on the grounds of taste, telling the High Court: “We do not all want to live next door to the creative and interesting.”
However, Judge Mark Pelling QC said the plans could not be blocked on “aesthetic grounds” and ordered them to pay a legal costs bill which is likely to be more than £1 million.
Ms Hicks, the mother of supermodel Edie Campbell, was granted planning permission for her subterranean house in 2015, four years after buying the plot of land.
But the neighbours refused to give consent for the home to be built, and sought to use small print in the contract from when the plot was sold in the Sixties.
Ms Hicks sued them and Judge Pelling ruled that objections on the grounds of taste were not reasonable because the design of the proposed building did not threaten the structural integrity or value of the villa next door.
“Refusal on this ground has nothing to do with protection of the defendant’s property interests,” he said.
The judge added: “The defendant’s property interest… does not entitle it to refuse approval based on aesthetics, disruption caused by construction or the risk of damage to or the destruction of trees, other than to the extent that the risk of such damage or destruction might adversely affect the structure of the building.
“From the moment when it was created, the site was always intended to be developed. It was never intended to be an open space or garden.”
Judge Pelling said the neighbours were entitled to continue to object if they fear construction of the house may damage their homes.
He said “a limited number of construction and engineering issues that were capable of justifying reasonable refusal of approval” had been identified by the neighbours but added that Ms Hicks could eliminate the risk with “detailed engineering design and management”.
The judge ordered the neighbours to pay £580,000 of Ms Hicks’s legal costs, on top of their own fees for a court battle which culminated in a nine-day High Court trial.
Their barrister, Stephanie Tozer QC, asked for “as long as possible to pay”, telling the judge: “It needs to be collected from a number of individuals and the company needs to go through that process.”
