Britain’s leading planning barrister has lost a bitter battle to keep a controversial rooftop pergola on his £3million west London townhouse – following an extraordinary feud with a neighbouring young mother whom he accused of telling ‘dishonest lies’.
Lord Charlie Banner became embroiled in a furious row with wealthy neighbours after building the wooden structure above his family’s Victorian gated mews home in ultra-exclusive South Kensington without first securing planning permission.
The pergola – draped in faux green shrubbery and festoon lights – triggered objections from a number of well-heeled residents when it suddenly appeared this summer.
Among those to complain was Georgina Shacklock – the daughter of multimillionaire city financier Tim Shacklock – who accused the KC and his Ukrainian barrister wife of ‘deliberately bypassing’ planning laws by failing to first obtain permission before building.
She claimed that the ‘especially depressing’ pergola built by Lord Banner, 46, and his wife Tetyana Nesterchuk, 43, blocked her six-month-old daughter’s view of the sky.
The first-time mother also claimed that the structure ‘dominates every view across all our floors’, and accused Lord Banner and his wife of harming ‘our family’s quality of life’.
Britain’s leading planning barrister Lord Charlie Banner built a pergola at his £3million London townhouse without planning permission, sparking complaints from neighbours
The pergola, which is draped in faux green shrubbery and festoon lights, appeared suddenly this summer and triggered objections from a number of well-heeled residents in South Kensington
Lord Banner – who has worked on some of Britain’s most significant planning cases, including HS2 and the Heathrow expansion – was voted the top planning KC in Britain in the 2025 and 2026 editions of Planning Magazine’s annual legal survey
Georgina Shacklock (pictured), daughter of multimillionaire city financier Tim Shacklock, said the ‘depressing’ pergola blocked her six-month-old daughter’s view of the sky
Ms Shacklock’s identity had remained concealed in the Kensington and Chelsea council planning objection published online.
But then, in a remarkable escalation, Lord Banner took the unusual step of publicly identifying Ms Shacklock – and accused her of telling ‘obvious’ and ‘dishonest lies’.
In a sworn legal declaration, the Conservative peer named Ms Shacklock as having been behind the objection.
In the legal document, submitted as part of a bid to secure retrospective permission for the pergola, the aristocrat described Ms Shacklock’s complaint as being ‘in bad faith’, suggested she did not live in the house, and even speculated that the complaints might be motivated by sympathy for Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Lord Banner and his wife have both been sanctioned by Moscow over their outspoken support and advocacy 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, who is a close friend of former PM 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.’
But now the peer has suffered a humiliating setback after councillors at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea rejected the retrospective planning application following the increasingly acrimonious neighbourhood dispute.
In a dramatic showdown at a planning committee meeting last week, Ms Shacklock insisted she had been entirely truthful and described his 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 marked the latest twist 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 continue to maintain that the structure was temporary and therefore did not require planning permission. They said it provided much-needed shelter from the stifling London heat for their two young children.
Neighbours, however, were less impressed by the rooftop addition, with several complaining that the structure loomed over their homes in the tightly controlled Thurloe and Smith’s Charity conservation area.
In her redacted complaint, Ms Shacklock, who purchased her neighbouring three-storey home for £2.25million in 2011, accused the peer and his wife of presenting town hall officials with a ‘fait accompli’ by building first and applying later.
She said: ‘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 added: ‘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 controversial pergola on Eagle Place stands considerably taller than surrounding rooftops
The structure is clearly visible from every front-facing window of the houses opposite
Lord Banner with his Ukrainian wife, Tetyana Nesterchuk, herself a high-flying lawyer, are accused by one neighbour of ‘deliberately bypassing’ planning laws by failing to first obtain permission before building
Lord Banner, who has worked on some of Britain’s most significant planning cases, including HS2 and the Heathrow expansion, a withering response to Ms Shacklock’s objections.
Describing the complaint as ‘fallacious’, he claimed he had never seen anyone entering or leaving her property, its blinds appeared permanently closed and he had seen no evidence of a baby living there.
He said: ‘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.
‘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 submitted his allegations because council officials needed to appreciate 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.’
Lord Banner suggested that reasons for a grudge could be from ‘someone stridently opposed’ to his membership of the Conservative Party or by someone ‘sympathetic to the Russian Government’.
He added: ‘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 the Daily Mail, Ms Shacklock hit back at Lord Banner’s extraordinary allegations, insisting she has said ‘nothing dishonest’, and accused the lawyer of unfairly ‘singling her out’ for attack.
A source close to her family pointed out that seven households had objected to the pergola, yet Lord Banner had chosen to publicly identify Ms Shacklock and ‘hammer’ her rather than address the complaints collectively.
The source also challenged the peer’s suggestion that she might not even live at the property, insisting Ms Shacklock resides there permanently.
In a pointed counter-attack, the source claimed that Lord Banner himself is ‘often away’ from his own three-storey mews townhouse, while his wife and two children are ‘rarely in residence’.
Ms Shacklock is described on her LinkedIn profile as a strategist with Lloyds Banking Group.
Her father Mr Shacklock was described in 2003 as London’s highest-earning banker when it emerged he had been paid an annual salary of £26million.
He went on to co-found the prestigious boutique bank Gleacher Shacklock, which was acquired last month by the global advisory firm Perella Weinberg in a deal reportedly worth up to £80million.
The saga surrounding the pergola had involved some of the capital’s wealthiest residents.
Supporters include Sir Lynton Crosby, the veteran election guru who helped mastermind Boris Johnson’s political victories, and the billionaire Reuben brothers, David and Simon.
The pergola erected on top of the family home overlooking the street sparked neighbours’ fury
Lord Banner is friends with former PM Rishi Sunak, with the pair pictured here 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 townhouse sits inside the Thurloe and Smith’s Charity conservation area, where architectural and cosmetic changes are closely controlled.
At last month’s committee meeting, planning agents acting for Lord Banner and Mrs Nesterchuk maintained that the roof terrace was lawful and that the pergola was a ‘pure matter of health and safety for our kids’.
A statement read on behalf of Mrs Nesterchuk insisted that the application attracted considerably 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.’
However, councillors were not persuaded and backed a report from officers which described the pergola as ‘unsightly’ and causing ‘unacceptable harm’ to neighbours.
The committee was told that enforcement action would now follow to secure the removal of the structure.
Yet, despite the ruling, the rooftop saga appears set to rumble on.
Ms Nesterchuk has appealed the refusal decision and submitted a further application asking the council to certify that ‘the existing pergola is lawful and may be retained without planning permission’.
A source close to the couple told the Daily Mail: ‘An immediate appeal has been submitted an appeal 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.
