Riddle of his £830k home makeover planners refused
Minister’s £2.6million townhouse as it was
ROBERT Jenrick was mired in a fresh row yesterday after it emerged Tory councillors approved an extension to his £2.6million townhouse despite planning officials rejecting it three times.
Documents show the Housing Secretary, 38, submitted plans to turn a rear firstfloor roof terrace into an extra room as part of renovations costing £830,000.
It was twice rejected by Westminster City Council’s planning officer in January and April 2014. This was on the grounds it would ‘harm’ the character and appearance of the building and surrounding conservation area. But in August 2014, two months after he became the Tory MP for Newark in Nottinghamshire, Mr Jenrick and his wife submitted plans for a third time.
Although the planning officer ruled it should again be refused, Tory councillor Steve Summers intervened and requested that it be referred to a committee to decide.
Mr Summers lives in the same exclusive square, just a short walk from the Houses of Parliament, as Mr Jenrick, The Times reported.
In November 2014, three Tory councillors on the planning committee then voted to overturn the officer’s decision and approve it. The first two applications had been made in Mr Jenrick’s name, but the third was under his wife’s, although she was wrongly listed as ‘Mr Michal Berkner’ on documents. The only councillor who voted against on the four-member planning committee was Labour’s Ruth Bush.
Last night she said it raises new concerns about why fellow councillors approved the scheme.
She said: ‘It is strange. There are clearly questions to be asked now. I kick myself for not thinking, “who is this Mr Michal Berkner?”
‘I made a note at the time that I thought it was a foolish decision because of the possibility of it setting a precedent.’
She added: ‘ For smaller applications it’s very unusual for them to be referred to committee. It’s usually only for major applications or where there are objections from the public.’ Neither applied in this case.
The documents show permission was granted despite the structure under the third application being 25cm higher. If it hadn’t been called into committee the planning officer’s refusal would have stood.
Mr Jenrick’s opposite number, Labour’s shadow communities sechad
‘The public need reassurance’
retary Steve Reed, called on the minister to reveal details of any contact he had with Tory councillors in the run-up or during the process.
He said: ‘The public need reassurance that there’s not one rule for Conservative politicians and another for everyone else.’
Further documents show Mr Jenrick set up a private company to have the renovations carried out after buying the five-bedroom terrace house in 2013. Accounts show his wife, a City lawyer, paid more than £800,000 into the company for the work to be done.
The arrangement has raised eyebrows among experts, who said it was a ‘ strange way’ of structuring the work. Property tax specialist Simon Misiewicz, who looked at the company’s accounts, said: ‘It’s clear no profits were made, so what’s the ulterior motive? ‘ Why would you carry out an activity like this for you to make no money?’
A spokesman for Mr Jenrick said ‘there were no tax advantages to this arrangement’ and that ‘all applicable taxes’ were paid.
Paul Church, one of the Tory councillors who gave planning approval, said he could not remember why he did and did not know Mr Jenrick was the homeowner.
Richard Beddoe, chairman of the committee, did not respond to requests for comment. The third Tory member, Robert Rigby, said he no contact with Mr Jenrick or his wife in the run-up to approving the extension, did not know Mr Jenrick was the owner, does not consider the housing minister or his wife a ‘friend’ and that the application was ‘judged on its merits and in planning
terms’. Mr summers referred questions to the council’s press office. westminster City Council said the scheme had ‘support from neighbours and due process was followed at all times’.
a spokesman for Mr Jenrick said: ‘Normal planning process for a standard planning extension was followed by the applicant.’