Property tycoon Robert Tchenguiz has won a High Court battle with Westminster City Council over access to his Kensington house.
Tchenguiz (pictured) and his family live in the only residential property on Kensington Gore, by the Royal Albert Hall, according to a ruling handed down today.
He and his staff have had difficulty accessing the property by car after traffic orders put in place last year blocked off the west side of Kensington Gore to traffic between noon and midnight.
The traffic restrictions have been put in place to stop a potential terrorist attack on concert-goers departing from the hall. However, as the only access to the house is from the front door, it means that inhabitants and visitors can only arrive by car before noon.
Meanwhile, according to the ruling, the Royal Albert Hall, which controls the gates that block the road, is able to give passes to employees and contractors allowing them to take vehicles though the gates.
Tchenguiz took legal action against the traffic orders and the case went to trial earlier this month. In a judgment handed down today (7 March), High Court judge Mrs Justice Lang ruled that the council had failed to take into account the effect of the changes on Tchenguiz’s rights under the Human Rights Act.
Specifically, the council should have had more regard to his right to a private and family life and his right to protection of property.
In her ruling, she stated what could be done: “This evidence demonstrates that it is apparently considered safe by the [council], the [Royal Albert Hall] and the [police] for the [hall] to allow large numbers of vehicles and people into the restricted area provided that they are identified and have a legitimate purpose for being there.
“In my view, the [council] could and should have considered taking a similar approach to the claimant and members of his household. They can be vetted, their names put on a security staff list, and individuals and their vehicles can be given approved passes.”
She said that the current situation puts the residents of the street in a worse position than temporary contractors at the Royal Albert Hall.
“Taking all these factors into account, I consider that the [council’s] decision-making was flawed, and in consequence the current scheme operates in a manner which is disproportionate,” she said.
Tchenguiz v Westminster City Council [2022] EWHC 469 (Admin)
Planning Court (Mrs Justice Lang) 7 March 2022
