Shein PR Director and her husband banned from watering their potted trees after a neighbours' fight with the chairman of Prince Harry's old polo club
- Tamara and Oliver Benjamin have been in seven-year dispute with Howard Davis
The PR director of Shein and her husband have been banned from watering their potted trees following a battle with the chairman of Prince Harry's old polo club over an 'intrusive' glass sunroom at their £2m-plus house.
Tamara and high-end City tailor Oliver Benjamin have been locked in a row with Howard Davis for seven years over their rooftop glass-cube sunroom, which was completed in 2017.
Mr Davis, who is chairman of Prince Harry's former polo club in Ham, claimed the modern rooftop room and terrace resulted in a 'loss of 360 degree privacy' in the exclusive gated development in leafy Richmond upon Thames and is 'obtrusive, intrusive, out of character and proportion'.
Now a judge has banned the fashion couple from accessing the north-facing part of their balcony to water their potted trees, and has ordered them to completely block it off from use with planters.
The couple have also been asked to block off the view from as much of the northern side of the glass room as they can while still complying with building regulations, Master James Brightwell said.
A fashion couple have been blocked from potting trees outside a glass sunroom in their £2million house
Oliver and Tamara Benjamin rom accessing the north-facing part of their balcony and have been ordered to completely block off the section
London's High Court heard that Mrs Benjamin and her husband, who runs his business from his tailor's shop near St Paul's Cathedral, bought their house near Petersham, Richmond, in 2014.
The gated development is adjacent to Grade-II listed Rutland Lodge, a historic mansion house dating from the 17th century.
Mr Davis lives in one of the four apartments in Rutland Lodge and is one of the directors of the company which owns the estate itself.
After moving in, the Benjamins began an extensive property rebuild, creating a swish modern architect-designed space, based mainly on the ground floor, but boasting a four-sided first-floor glass-cube sunroom.
Despite the Benjamins owning the freehold of their own house, the company has the benefit of restrictive covenants relating to it and other houses on the land, allowing the directors to veto applications for alterations which it deems undesirable.
After Mr and Mrs Benjamin moved in, the management company approved their redevelopment sketches put forward in 2015, giving the green light to a plan which included a first floor sun room.
However, by the time the plans were finally approved in 2016, they had been altered to make the glass sun room larger and include plans for a first floor roof terrace.
A legal battle then ensued, with the company seeking to force the Benjamins to demolish the sunroom and terrace and rebuild it smaller, in line with the 2015 plan they said was the only approved version.
Mr Davis also made a public complaint about 'loss of 360 degree privacy' due to the 'obtrusive, intrusive' glass room at the Benjamins' home.
In an objection to a later 2021 planning application by the couple posted on Richmond Borough Council's website, Mr Davis said that under the 2016 planning permission 'a far larger building was proposed' and ultimately built than under the 2015 design.
Neighbour Howard Davis, chairman of Prince Harry's former polo club in Ham, claimed the rooftop room is 'obtrusive, intrusive, out of character and proportion'
The Benjamins bought their house on an exclusive estate near Petersham, Richmond, in 2014
'The combination of enlarged windows, loss of louvers, greatly enlarged construction and allowance of use of the roof as a terrace have consequently resulted in a major increase in overlooking of the amenity spaces surrounding the building in Petersham,' he wrote.
'Whether from the...patios, lawn, driveway (of Rutland Lodge) or from the Petersham Nurseries, Montrose House, the Petersham Meadow, the property is visible, with possibly up to 14 properties affected.'
Defending the couple's action, barrister Elizabeth Fitzgerald admitted the sun room was bigger in the 2016 permission, but pointed out they were 'far less extensive alterations' to the house than under a previously granted planning permission, which had given the green light for total demolition and the excavation of a basement.
The dispute was settled in February 2023, but the neighbours then fell out again and began another court fight after disagreeing over the meaning of some of the terms in the consent order.
The agreement banned use of the northern section of the terrace except for 'maintenance or emergency,' required a barrier of planters to block it off, and called for the windows on the north to be completely obscured with louvers.
In court, the Benjamins insisted that they had done enough to block access to the northern section with plants, but that the settlement allowed them access it to water their potted trees.
They should also only have to use their 'best endeavours' to install louvers on all of the window, as that might contravene building regulations.
But giving judgment, Master Brightwell ordered them to use more planters to close off 'gaps' in the 'barrier' preventing access to the northern part of the terrace, while also ruling that they cannot water their potted trees there.
'I consider that the central purpose of the parties' agreement was to ensure that the relevant area of terrace would be accessed as little as possible, and that access to it would be limited to truly essential matters,' he said.
'The agreement is quite unequivocal. The relevant part of the roof of the defendants' property is not to be used at all, except for maintenance or in emergencies.
'I do not consider that the watering of plants can sensibly be said to be 'maintenance'. That word naturally refers to the maintenance of the building itself.
'I also consider that the retention of plants in the prohibited area constitutes the use of that area, and is in breach of the parties' agreement accordingly.'
He also ruled against the Benjamins on their argument that the way they had blocked off the northern section complied with the settlement agreement, which required a permanent 'barrier' to be marked with planters.
In court, the Benjamins claimed that they had fulfilled their obligation with a line of two metal plant pots and gaps filled with smaller terracotta pots.
But ruling against them, the judge said: 'It seems to me quite likely that a person could pass through some of the gaps, even if not easily.
Despite previously settling a dispute in February 2023, the neighbours fell out again over some of the terms agreed. Pictured: Oliver Benjamin
The Benjamins argued that their settlement allowed them to access the northern section of the terrace to water the potted trees, but a judge ruled
'The claimant contends that the current arrangement is not in compliance with the parties' agreement. There are not 'planters' across the entire line, as there are gaps between the pots.
'The Oxford English Dictionary provides the material definition of a 'planter' as: 'A pot, tub, or other container for growing or displaying plants'.
'It also defines a 'barrier' as: 'A fence or material obstruction of any kind erected (or serving) to bar the advance of persons or things, or to prevent access to a place'.
'I consider that any container in which plants can be grown and which is capable of forming part of a barrier is capable of satisfying the contractual requirement.
'It is clear to me, both from the background to the dispute and the intention behind the compromise, and from the use of the word 'barrier' which is to mark the relevant lines, that the planters must extend for the entirety of each line.
'It would be in the nature of a barrier that it extends along the full length of each relevant line, in order to prevent the line being crossed.
'The gaps between the planters/pots mean that this requirement is not currently satisfied.'
Lawyers in the case said outside court after the ruling that the question of who pays for the cost of the fight will be dealt with at a later date yet to be set.
