A billionaire property tycoon is embroiled in a High Court dispute with a council over traffic management orders which he says significantly restrict access to his London home.
Robert Tchenguiz, 61, is at loggerheads with Westminster City Council over arrangements around his luxury South Kensington home near the Royal Albert Hall.
The council says it has taken essential steps to guard against “vehicle-borne terrorist attacks” in the area around the famous concert hall, by “removing parked vehicles” from the “lengths of road immediately adjacent” to the hall.
An unhappy Mr Tzenguiz has now asked Mrs Justice Lang to intervene in the feud and quash the traffic management orders made by the local authority.
Mr Tchenguiz says the council has failed to have regard to the “significant interference” with his human right to respect for private and family life.
Lawyers representing him are also arguing that the council’s decision was “materially influenced by an improper motive” – facilitating the provision of a loading and parking area for the Royal Albert Hall.
Mr Tchenguiz is a well-known face in luxury property development, and made a splash when he bought MI5’s former headquarters in Mayfair for £140 million and said he wanted to turn it into the “highest-end hotel in the world”.
However Westminster Council threw a spanner into the works last year by insisting the development must comply with a new City Plan, asking for proof that the loss of office space could be justified.
In the legal hearing at the High Court on Thursday, lawyers representing the council argued that the traffic management orders are valid and Mr Tchenguiz’s complaints should be dismissed.
“The claimant, a private individual, challenges two traffic management orders made by Westminster City Council,” said Tim Buley QC, who is leading Mr Tchenguiz’s legal team.
“The traffic management orders have the effect of significantly restricting access to his family home.
“Control over the restrictions on access under the traffic management orders is delegated to the Royal Albert Hall, who designed, promoted and funded the proposals.
“The council argues that the ‘primary objective’ of the traffic management orders was ‘to safeguard the public and premises, including residents, in the vicinity of the Royal Albert Hall from vehicle-borne terrorist attacks by removing parked vehicles from the lengths of road immediately adjacent to the hall’.”
Ruth Stockley, leading the council’s legal team, told the judge in a written argument: “The defendant undoubtedly had regard to the claimed interference with the claimant’s human rights as part of the decision-making process.”
She said the council was not influenced by any desire to facilitate parking for the Royal Albert Hall, and added: “The defendant is entirely independent from the Royal Albert Hall.”
Mr Buley told the judge: “In practice, the approach of the Royal Albert Hall has been to use the area to which access is restricted by the traffic management orders as a private parking area for the Royal Albert Hall, with large numbers of vehicles regularly parked within that area.
“This is obviously inconsistent with the submission that the primary purpose of the measures is the prevention of terrorism.
“Instead, a power intended to avoid or reduce the likelihood of, or danger associated with, terrorism has been used to facilitate the Royal Albert Hall’s operations, with the effect of turning a section of public highway into a private yard.”
Miss Stockley said: “The defendant was not in any way materially influenced by a purpose of facilitating the provision of a loading and parking area for the Royal Albert Hall.”
She said the orders did not “prevent access” to the Mr Tchenguiz’s home but prevented “vehicular access to the kerbside” on the road outside between noon and midnight.
The court hearing is expected to continue on Friday.
