Tonight:
4°c
Artists evicted from £6m squat move into £22m Mayfair mews
Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter9 Jan 2009
SQUATTERS evicted from a £6 million house in Mayfair have found a new home - a £22.5 million property just around the corner.
The squatters, a collective of young artists, have been living in Clarges Mews near Berkeley Square since last month. But the owners, a company called Timekeeper Ltd, only noticed when a Christmas tree was spotted through a window.
Timekeeper has now instructed lawyers to apply for an eviction order. A hearing is due to take place today at a county court in central London which could see the squatters evicted immediately.
Timekeeper bought the Grade II*--listed property - part of which is being squatted - for £22.5million in April 2007 at the peak of the housing boom. It was lying empty while the firm awaited planning permission for renovations.
The artists moved in after being evicted from a house in Upper Grosvenor Street worth £6.25million.
Known as the Da! Collective, they are hosting a series of events at their latest home this weekend. The squat's website temporaryschool.org lists sessions including "labyrinth building with Steph" which takes place tomorrow followed by "deschooling society". On Sunday there is bookbinding, role-playing and a discussion on "virtual utopias".
The activities are even advertised with posters on nearby lampposts and sandwich boards. Photographs on the website show living rooms with fireplaces and high ceilings.
The squatters have been quite selective about who they let in to 39A Clarges Mews. They refused access to a Standard journalist today on the grounds that they did not wish to mingle with mainstream media.
One report suggested they had made "improvements" since taking over - even adding a library complete with librarian's ladder.
However, the property's dilapidated exterior is matched by the bare walls and mountains of apparently junk material stored by the artists within, and there are makeshift beds throughout the house.
Timekeeper's solicitor Andrew Jeffrey said: "I spoke to one of the squatters over the phone, a young woman, and she was very polite. She told me that they thought the building was empty and that they were highlighting the number of empty buildings in London But I told her that, although the building was unoccupied, it wasn't abandoned.
"The building was empty because, since my clients bought it in 2007, they have been making a series of planning applications, which have been very complicated because the building is Grade II*-listed."
While at the previous address in Mayfair one of the artists Stephanie Smith, 21, told the Standard: "If anything, we are improving the building [in Upper Grosvenor Street] by mending leaks and things. The building is listed so English Heritage might be interested to see how the owners have let it disintegrate."
Miss Smith says the group are now shunning media attention. She said: "I can't speak about it. We are not doing anything with the press."
Click below to see a video shot inside the squatters' house:
Reader views (19)
bet they wish they had let them stay now...
- Samantha, toronto, canada, 14/02/2010 06:04
Report abuse
Agree completely with the previous comment (Kaye Alfresco, London), as well as those who support using this space if it otherwise remains unoccupied.
Someone from Australia said that everyone would love to be an artist - although I don't agree with that, nothing stops you from joining them (if you have the courage, that is). I mean I've seen a lot of this stuff in Amsterdam and I'm a bit tired of it, but as long as they don't bother anyone else and do not try to appropriate the building, let them be and let them have fun.
- Vladimir Nedovic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 28/10/2009 09:08
Report abuse
Joanna, it's not the language they understand. It would be interesting if the landlords were to let loose half a dozen pit-bulls free to roam the house.
- Haskey, London SE1, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
Squatting sounds so romantic doesn't it? Yet these people are thieves pure and simple. They should be removed immediately and jailed.
- Casper Slides, France at the moment, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
"a collective of young artists"
Or as they're more commonly known, upper middle class bored wannabes living off their parents and trying to be "cool".
- Bob, Cheam, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
Joanna,
This building has been ampty for 10 years. How irresponsible is that. well done to these squatters for making use of wasted space
- Paul, london, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
Joanna from London - you clearly have not read the article or just wish to take the knee jerk reaction of your averge Mail reader- they are not squatting someones home, the place was EMPTY when they moved in and it is owned by property developers. I feel that they should stay there until the property developers are actually going to do something to the place - why should places sit idle just because they are waiting to be 'developed'?
I believe that this sort of practice should be legitimised - if the squatters are doing no integral damage and may indeed be making improvements then it saves the staff having to check the building regularly. Empty buildings are more vulnerable to break ins from vandals and decent squatters will dter such people. My family were 'decent squatters' when I was 15 - we ended up owning the place.
- Caroline, london, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
As the building is nobody's home and is owned by a company who no doubt bought it as a investment to sale on to make a vast profit, good luck to them.Property speculation is responsible for the vast homeless problem we have in this country.
- Kev, London-UK, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
Good on them and shame on the owners who leave properties empty when there is a housing shortage. If they respect the property and leave peacefully when asked I can't see what the owner has to worry about.
- Nj, London, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
Sounds like the Zimbabwe approach... find someone else's property you like the look of, then find an excuse to appropriate it. In fact, Mugabe doesn't even bother with excuses now... just chuck out the existing occupants.
It's PRIVATE PROPERTY! Geddit? If we all acted according to our personal interpretation of the law, there would be anarchy. Come to think of it, that's probably the political persuasion of those illegal occupiers. Wait till they're a bit older and come to their senses.
- Haskey, London SE1, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
If you leave your home empty because you've got another one somewhere, then it's better to have it occupied than just sit there doing nothing.
- Neil, london uk,, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
£22.5 million pounds and the property is left empty...Wow
Pure greed, now's the time to share.
Ken, London
- Ken, London, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
I think it's fantastic..! I'm proud that artists like this are still alive and kicking in Britain. It's so refreshing. I wish them all the luck in the world.
Viva art and the spirit of the young.
Paul x
- Paul Jardine, Bromley, Kent, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
Bob is spot on. How do they pay for the electricity and water. And who pays the council tax? We all would love to be artists.
- Brian Fast, Sydney australia, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
It doesn't matter whether someone is living there or not. They are a) breaking the law and b) causing great expense to the rightful owners. It doesn't matter who the owners are, this is wrong. Squatters should be locked up.
- Ds, Kingston, UK, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
I hope they are removed immediately.
- Philip, London, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
Kick them out immediately. Nothing less than breaking and entering. anyone supporting them, ask yourselves how would you feel if strangers just moved in to yor home...
- Joanna, london, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
I think people who suggest they be 'thrown out' are just jealous that unlike themselves these ‘squatters’ don’t have to pay rent/mortgage and resent that. As someone said above, if they were squatting in a 'home' then it would be different, but knowing developers myself these people are not 'hurting their feelings', at the most they’re merely hurting their already plump pockets. As long as they don't damage the place and leave when the time comes for development let them be. It's inspiring to see not everyone conforms to the false purpose in life present society promotes. Also someone above needs a Politics lesson...Anarchy isn’t ‘the young ones’ if you picked up a book you might see it could actually be better than the dictatorship of the majority we presently live under.
- Kaye Alfresco, London, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
True, but whose 22 million pound home lies unoccupied, falling into disrepair and disuse, and take months for the owners to even realise there are squatters in it? Mine certainly doesn't, i'm sure yours doesn't, so what is the harm of people occupying an empty building, especially people who are using it constructively, running classes and discussions that perhaps could be of benefit to people on a larger scale?
- Dan, London, 28/10/2009 08:08
Report abuse
