Controversial £100m Knightsbridge Project Will House Nearly 2,000 Workers Amid Fears of Reduced Privacy for Residents

An 11-storey office block set to rise next to Harrods in Knightsbridge has been approved, despite opposition from local residents over potential privacy issues. The Westminster City Council has given the go-ahead for the project at 1 Knightsbridge Green, which will provide office space for nearly 2,000 workers and generate significant footfall in the area, potentially boosting the local economy.

The scheme, presented by Berkeley Estate Asset Management (BEAM), was narrowly passed in a council vote, with some members voicing strong concerns about the impact on residents’ privacy. Conservative councillors Rachael Robathan and Jim Glen opposed the project, citing fears that workers could use terraces and windows to look into homes along Brompton Road and Raphael Street. In contrast, Labour councillors, including Paul Fisher and committee chair Jason Williams, supported the development, emphasising the need for quality office space to drive economic growth in Westminster.

Although the design was praised, Cllr Robathan raised alarms about the noise levels and potential loss of privacy for those living in nearby properties, especially along Raphael Street, where the development is set to create a sense of enclosure. Cllr Glen echoed concerns about the terraces, which could allow employees to peer into neighbouring homes.

BEAM intends to replace the largely vacant Caltex House with a modern office block featuring 12,400 square metres of office space. The development will also preserve a pub, restaurant, and post office at ground level. A budget of over £100 million has been allocated for the project, which will include an underground cycle parking area, a ‘pocket’ garden, and measures to offset the carbon emissions of the development at nearby schools.

However, the development has faced significant opposition from residents, with some objectors warning that the building’s massing and scale would block sunlight from neighbouring homes, causing as much as a 90% reduction in natural light for some properties. Cllr Elizabeth Hitchcock raised concerns that the project would create a “canyon-like” effect along Raphael Street and lead to an oppressive environment on Brompton Road.

Despite these objections, Westminster City Council maintained that the development would not cause “undue” harm or privacy loss. In response to the concerns, the developers agreed to incorporate frosted glass on certain sections of the building to limit the view into residential homes.

BEAM argued that the existing Caltex House is outdated and of poor quality, serving only around 200 people when it could accommodate many more. The business community in Knightsbridge also expressed support for the redevelopment, stating that the current building is unattractive and has safety and air quality issues.

The project is expected to enhance the area and contribute to the economic vibrancy of Knightsbridge, although residents remain concerned about its potential impact on their quality of life.

Sports Doctor and Lawyer Sisters Sued by Their Mother Over Property and Divorce Settlement

A sports medicine specialist, who once saved her mother’s life by donating a kidney, is now embroiled in a bitter £1 million-plus legal dispute with her own family. Dr. Sonia Bains, aged 38, and her sister Sharn Bains, 29, a lawyer, are being sued by their mother, Camilla Bains, over ownership of an £800,000 house and a £340,000 divorce settlement.

The case, which has unfolded in Central London County Court, centres on the property located in Rosehill Gardens, Sutton, and the £340,000 Camilla received as part of her 2019 divorce settlement. Camilla has been in poor health for many years, having undergone three kidney transplants, with the most recent one in 2017, where Sonia was the donor.

Despite the life-saving gesture, the family’s relationship has since deteriorated. Sonia bought the Rosehill Gardens house in 2015, claiming sole ownership, but Camilla’s legal team argues that a declaration of trust signed at the time made her the true beneficial owner of the property. Sonia’s legal team, however, maintains that the house was rightfully purchased by Sonia, asserting that the trust document was signed under duress.

The dispute also extends to the divorce settlement. Camilla claims that £340,000 of the divorce payout, which she transferred to her daughters, was intended to be held “on trust” for her, but Sonia and Sharn argue that their mother gifted them the money.

The case has been described as tragic by the sisters’ barrister, Simon Calhaem, who noted the significant breakdown in the family’s relationship, despite earlier gestures of generosity, including Sonia’s kidney donation. Camilla, on the other hand, seeks not only the return of the £340,000 but also £125,000 from Sonia and £240,000 from Sharn, alongside vacant possession of the house.

The court battle has highlighted the deep rift between the family members, with both sides presenting conflicting accounts of financial contributions and the ownership of property. Sonia and Sharn’s lawyers argue that the legal documents support their claim, while Camilla’s legal team insists that the house and divorce funds were always intended for her benefit.

The case continues to unfold, with both parties seeking to resolve the dispute over the house and the funds, while attempting to reclaim what they believe to be rightfully theirs.

Court declares will invalid after video shows daughter physically forcing mother to sign documents before her death.

An electrician has emerged victorious in a legal battle over his late mother’s estate, following the revelation of a video in which his sister appears to physically manipulate their dying mother’s hand as she signs a will. Margaret Baverstock, aged 76, was gravely ill in March 2021 when she signed a will leaving her entire estate to her daughter, Lisa, excluding her son, John.

John Baverstock, now 61, challenged the validity of the will, arguing that the signing was not a genuine, independent act by his mother. The video footage, presented as evidence in court, showed Lisa Baverstock guiding and physically controlling their mother’s hand as she marked her signature on the document. The footage raised concerns about Margaret’s ability to understand what she was signing, as she was suffering from advanced dementia and other health issues.

The court heard that Margaret could hardly respond, let alone comprehend the contents of the will. She could only manage to make non-verbal noises like “yeah” or a grunt when questioned. In light of this, Judge Jane Evans-Gordon ruled that the will was invalid. The judge concluded that Margaret was incapable of independently signing the will, and that her daughter had manipulated the situation, physically forcing her hand to mark the document.

The will, drafted by Lisa and printed from an online template, had left John with nothing from his mother’s £700,000 estate. John claimed that his sister had grown resentful and excluded him from their mother’s care in her final years, which led to a significant family dispute.

Lisa, who had been living with her mother to provide 24/7 care, argued that her mother was mentally clear and had expressed her desire to leave everything to her. However, the judge found that the will was not executed properly, and Margaret did not possess the necessary mental capacity to understand or approve its contents.

As a result of the ruling, the court declared that Margaret had died without a valid will, and her estate would be divided equally between John and Lisa. Additionally, Lisa was ordered to cover John’s legal costs, which are expected to amount to around £80,000.