Britain’s leading planning barrister has lost his fight to retain a controversial rooftop pergola at his £3million west London townhouse after an extraordinary dispute with a neighbouring young mother, whom he accused of making “dishonest lies”.
Lord Charlie Banner became embroiled in a bitter row with affluent residents after installing the wooden structure above his family’s Victorian gated mews house in exclusive South Kensington without first obtaining planning permission.
The pergola, decorated with artificial greenery and festoon lighting, appeared during the summer and quickly prompted objections from several wealthy neighbours.
One of those objectors was Georgina Shacklock, the daughter of multimillionaire financier Tim Shacklock. She accused the KC and his Ukrainian barrister wife of “deliberately bypassing” planning rules by constructing the pergola before seeking approval.
Ms Shacklock said the “especially depressing” structure, built by Lord Banner, 46, and Tetyana Nesterchuk, 43, obstructed her six-month-old daughter’s view of the sky.
The first-time mother also claimed the pergola “dominates every view across all our floors” and had damaged “our family’s quality of life”.
Planning barrister Lord Charlie Banner installed a pergola at his £3million London townhouse without planning permission, prompting complaints from neighbours
Draped with artificial greenery and festoon lights, the pergola appeared in South Kensington during the summer and drew objections from several affluent residents
Lord Banner has worked on major planning cases including HS2 and the Heathrow expansion, and was named Britain’s leading planning KC in Planning Magazine’s 2025 and 2026 legal surveys
Georgina Shacklock, pictured, said the “depressing” rooftop structure blocked her six-month-old daughter’s view of the sky
Ms Shacklock’s name had been withheld from the planning objection published online by Kensington and Chelsea council.
The dispute escalated dramatically when Lord Banner took the unusual step of identifying her publicly and accused her of making “obvious” and “dishonest lies”.
In a sworn declaration submitted in support of the couple’s retrospective planning application, the Conservative peer named Ms Shacklock as the person behind the objection.
He described her complaint as being made “in bad faith”, questioned whether she lived at the property and speculated that the objections could be linked to sympathy for Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Lord Banner and his wife have both been sanctioned by Moscow over their vocal support for Ukraine.
He wrote: “I am sure beyond reasonable doubt that the author of these representations is Ms Georgina (aka Georgie) Shacklock.
“Daughter of a Mr Tim Shacklock who was reported earlier this year to be ‘London’s highest earning banker’, and who herself happens to have found a career in banking.”
Lord Banner, a close friend of former prime minister Rishi Sunak, added: “I am swearing this as a Statutory Declaration in full knowledge that if it is deliberately untruthful, then as a King’s Counsel and member of the House of Lords that would be career-ending.”
The peer has now suffered a significant setback after councillors at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea rejected the retrospective application, bringing the increasingly hostile neighbourhood dispute to a fresh stage.
At a planning committee meeting last week, Ms Shacklock insisted that her complaint was truthful and described Lord Banner’s allegations as “abhorrent”.
“I want to make it absolutely clear. I own the property and I live there with my husband and an eight-month-old baby,” she told councillors.
“We have not been dishonest. There are no examples of where we’ve been dishonest.
“I find it abhorrent that the accusation has been thrown around with no proof or backing, especially from a legal professional and a member of the House of Lords.”
The confrontation was the latest development in a dispute that began when the wooden pergola appeared on the roof of Lord Banner’s three-storey home in August.
The peer and his wife maintain that the structure was temporary and therefore did not need planning consent. They said it offered essential protection from London’s intense summer heat for their two young children.
Several neighbours took a different view, arguing that the addition towered over nearby homes in the tightly regulated Thurloe and Smith’s Charity conservation area.
In her redacted objection, Ms Shacklock, who bought the neighbouring three-storey house for £2.25million in 2011, accused the couple of presenting the council with a “fait accompli” by building first and applying afterwards.
She wrote: “The applicant and her husband Lord Charles Banner, who operates as a leading professional within the planning sector, deliberately erected this substantial structure without seeking prior consent and subsequently missed an enforcement response deadline.
“While retrospective applications are legally permitted, the deliberate bypass of the planning process to create a fait accompli should not obscure the clear, demonstrable harm this structure inflicts on neighbouring properties, the streetscape, and, most importantly, our family’s quality of life.
“This situation has been incredibly stressful and upsetting for my family.”
She continued: “I respectfully request that the council refuse retrospective planning permission and initiate formal enforcement action to require the complete removal of the unauthorised structure, including the string of lights.”
The disputed pergola on Eagle Place rises noticeably above the surrounding rooftops
The rooftop structure can be seen from the front-facing windows of the houses opposite
Lord Banner and his Ukrainian wife, lawyer Tetyana Nesterchuk, have been accused by a neighbour of bypassing planning rules by building before seeking permission
Lord Banner, whose previous work includes major planning cases involving HS2 and the Heathrow expansion, responded forcefully to Ms Shacklock’s objections.
Calling the complaint “fallacious”, he said he had never seen anyone enter or leave the property, that its blinds appeared to remain closed and that he had seen no sign of a baby living there.
He wrote: “I have never seen anyone enter or exit. I have also regularly noted that the blinds in every window of that property… have always been closed.
RELATED: Slain NYC Jogger Katie Suarez Saves Five Lives Through Organ Donation
“I have never seen any sign of life in the evening either, e.g. lights turned on or a television screen visible.
“There are no indications of a baby present, such as a pram or other paraphernalia with which we ourselves are familiar as parents of two young children.
“The property is accessed via a set of steep steps and there is nothing either at the top or bottom of the steps indicating that they are or have been used by a mother with a pram.
“Fundamentally, whether or not a recently postpartum mother does habitually live in Thistle Grove (as to which we have serious doubts), the suggestion that ‘previously our baby would have been able to look out and see the sky’ is manifestly disingenuous given that all the windows in the property have had and continue to have their blinds shut on every single day.”
He said he had made the allegations because council officials needed to understand that they were “being lied to by the principal objector”.
Lord Banner added: “We are truly baffled as to what the motive for these demonstrably false and dishonest representations is.
“We are also at a loss to understand why their author did not first approach us for a discussion, instead preferring to write untruthful representations to the council.
“We can only think this otherwise inexplicable conduct must be motivated by some kind of grudge.”
He suggested that the alleged grudge could have come from someone strongly opposed to his Conservative Party membership or from someone “sympathetic to the Russian Government”.
He continued: “Of course, it may be none of the above and some other inexplicable reason for disseminating obvious lies against someone they have never met.
“In any case, it is deeply unsettling and I feel it most important to correct the record.”
When approached by Our News Outlet, Ms Shacklock rejected the allegations, saying she had made “nothing dishonest” and accusing the barrister of unfairly singling her out.
A source close to her family said that seven households had objected to the pergola, but Lord Banner had chosen to identify and “hammer” Ms Shacklock rather than respond to the objections as a group.
The source also disputed the suggestion that she did not live at the property, insisting that Ms Shacklock was a permanent resident.
In a further criticism, the source claimed that Lord Banner was himself “often away” from his three-storey mews townhouse, while his wife and two children were “rarely in residence”.
Ms Shacklock’s LinkedIn profile describes her as a strategist at Lloyds Banking Group.
Her father, Tim Shacklock, was described in 2003 as London’s highest-earning banker after reports that he had received an annual salary of £26million.
He later co-founded boutique bank Gleacher Shacklock, which was acquired last month by global advisory firm Perella Weinberg in a deal reportedly worth up to £80million.
The rooftop dispute has drawn in some of London’s wealthiest and most influential residents.
Supporters of the pergola include Sir Lynton Crosby, the veteran election strategist credited with helping Boris Johnson secure political victories, and billionaire brothers David and Simon Reuben.
The pergola built above the family home overlooking the street provoked anger among neighbours
Lord Banner, who is friends with former prime minister Rishi Sunak, is pictured with him at Lord’s in 2023
Sir Lynton, 70, wrote to the council: “I consider the erection to be a natural and non-intrusive works which are conducive to the family lifestyle of the area and which make sensible use of the rooftop amenity.”
Lord Banner’s property lies within the Thurloe and Smith’s Charity conservation area, where changes to buildings and their appearance are subject to strict controls.
At last month’s committee hearing, planning agents representing Lord Banner and Ms Nesterchuk argued that the roof terrace was lawful and that the pergola was installed purely as a “matter of health and safety for our kids”.
A statement delivered on Ms Nesterchuk’s behalf also argued that the application had received substantially more support than opposition.
“There are 14 supporters and seven letters objecting,” she said.
“But as far as we can see, those seven letters are from only three individuals, many written by AI.”
Councillors nevertheless rejected the argument and accepted a planning officers’ report describing the pergola as “unsightly” and as causing “unacceptable harm” to neighbouring properties.
The committee was told that enforcement proceedings would now be launched to secure the structure’s removal.
Despite the decision, however, the rooftop dispute is not over.
Ms Nesterchuk has appealed against the refusal and submitted another application seeking a certificate confirming that “the existing pergola is lawful and may be retained without planning permission”.
A source close to the couple told Our News Outlet: “An immediate appeal has been submitted against the council’s decision, together with an application for costs.
“An application for a certificate of lawfulness, to prove that planning permission was not required, has also been submitted and is pending determination.
“The intrusion into the family’s private life is taking a toll on their mental health and the family’s preference is for due process now to take its course whilst the family focuses on their daily lives.”
Lord Banner and Ms Nesterchuk were approached for comment.
