Morning:
8°c
£30m squat in Park Lane with the best view in London
Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter22 Jan 2009
SQUATTERS have moved into two seven-storey houses worth £15 million each in Park Lane.
The properties - thought to be owned by the Duke of Westminster - had stood empty for some time before the squatters arrived.
The houses afford some of the best views in London, looking out across Park Lane and on to Hyde Park. The group, who are living at numbers 94 and 95 Park Lane, have set up an informal art collective, spending the days playing music and creating art installations and paintings.
About 20 young people, many from overseas, are living in the houses with more expected in the coming days. They can enjoy taking their dogs for walks in Hyde Park, rubbing shoulders with multi-millionaires - including such celebrities as Madonna, who has a home nearby, and guests at the Dorchester, perhaps London's smartest hotel which is favoured by visiting royalty and film stars.
One of the squatters, who gave his name only as Martin, said: "The view at sunset over Hyde Park is just magic, especially from the penthouse. I really love it here."
Martin, who is 27 and from South Africa, added: "There was no furniture here so we had to bring our own. If anyone could send us money or furniture it would be great. We've no TV and make our own music to keep ourselves entertained.
"There's quite a large squatters' community in London and we always pass on information. We'd noticed these houses had been empty for about two years. We got in through an open basement door."
Another squatter, Meg, 21, who is British, added: "It's much better when squatters move into a rich person's home like this, as the owner can obviously afford to have us here. I suppose some people would say I should get a job - but it doesn't really suit at the moment."
The emergence of squatters at such a landmark address has caused consternation among residents. Ian Brimhurst, a member of the Westminster Homeowners' Association, said: "I'm very upset. We don't want this sort of thing blighting such a beautiful part of London."
The freehold to both properties is owned by Grosvenor Estates, which manages the Duke of Westminster's vast property empire.
The houses have 12 rooms and cover about 12,000 sq ft. It is claimed the buildings, which were used as offices, may have been empty for as long as two years. Leaseholds exist on the properties and are registered to offshore investment companies in Guernsey and the British Virgin Islands.
The economic downturn may be inadvertently causing a revival in squatting with increasing numbers of very expensive properties being left empty. Groups have even used the internet to highlight new squats in some of London's wealthiest streets. It is not a criminal offence to squat in a property provided no criminal damage is caused when moving in. Owners must seek court orders to evict squatters although this can take time.
Squatters are still thought to be living in a £22 million house in Clarges Mews, about 400 yards from Park Lane, which they moved into this month. On the website www.temporaryschool.org, the squatters have advertised a timetable of events up until Sunday, culminating in a screening of the Ealing comedy Kind Hearts And Coronets.
Reader views (21)
I as a squatterThink that if no one is using a place and they are letting it go downhill then squatters should be there they get a place to live and the building gets taken care of
- Peyton, London, 24/07/2009 18:17
Report abuse
Amazing. Good luck to all squatters out there, keeping themselves dry and empty houses occupied.
It's worth it just to be a flea in the ear of these bloated, overpaid property owners who can afford to keep £30million houses empty for two years. It's also heartening to see mainly positive comments here.
- Sam, North London, 23/01/2009 09:59
Report abuse
As somebody who was a member of the squatting community in the 60s and 70s I'm so gladdened by this,to see people taking direct action again really does up lift my spirits,its such a good example to all those apathetic and lost young people that mooch around totally lost on are streets.
- Kev, London-UK, 23/01/2009 09:50
Report abuse
The interesting thing about "shelter as a basic human right" and this lot is that they still have to be in Mayfair! Surely a more worthy cause would be "squatting" the office space for a charity - not as living space for a bunch of ner-do-wells with a love for high cielings...
I hear that Martin had a party there to "raise the money to go home" (South Africa) but is still living there!!
Says it all imo
- James, London UK, 23/01/2009 09:29
Report abuse
The interesting thing about "shelter as a basic human right" and this lot is that they still have to be in Mayfair! Surely a more worthy cause would be "squatting" the office space for a charity - not as living space for a bunch of ner-do-wells with a love for high cielings...
I hear that Martin had a party there to "raise the money to go home" (South Africa) but is still living there!!
Says it all imo
- James, London UK, 23/01/2009 09:29
Report abuse
love to you all.. maybe now the rich fat cats will start realising exactly how greedy they are. why should people go on the street when theres empty properties laying around? fair play to you all - solidarity x
- Neck, england, 23/01/2009 00:36
Report abuse
And it means the government doesn't have to pay to house them in one of those 2.5 million pound places with private landlords like a couple of those other news stories recently.
- Claire, London, 22/01/2009 21:48
Report abuse
Good luck artists! This country does not support artists who generally have to undertake other work to pay for basic commodities when all we want to do is create, which actually takes 100% of my energy. Where would we be without music and art?
- Joy, The South, UK, 22/01/2009 17:24
Report abuse
Shelter is a basic human right, not something which a bank or judge should be able to remove from people. All the families who have had their homes repossessed and ben made to feel ashamed and low just because they didn't have enough money to keep up ridiculously high mortgage payments should take a leaf out of the art collective's book and legally squat. It is immoral for anyone to hold onto a house that they don't even need for their own use while others live on the street.
- Joy, The South, UK, 22/01/2009 17:20
Report abuse
Good one Mary,
The homeless would benefit from all these empty houses in London.Come on Boris,turn your attention to something without an agenda!
- Plato, london, 22/01/2009 17:10
Report abuse
It is in the interests of the absent owners that their property be occupied. Well said, Mary: it is a scandal that some people are so stuffed with money that they can leave idle a huge property in central London whilst hard-working families are being turned onto the streets by the useless banksters. Squatting is a market mechanism and it's too bad for the owners.
- Neil, london uk,, 22/01/2009 16:36
Report abuse
Good luck to them!
- Nj, UK, 22/01/2009 16:00
Report abuse
They should employ the services of a property management company to have them removed quickly.
- Shane Cooper, Manchester, 22/01/2009 15:34
Report abuse
Good for them, I'll knock the door when I pass, as I've some old furniture they can have.
- P I Staker, London, 22/01/2009 14:55
Report abuse
Good on them. It is an absolute scandal that so many second, third etc. properties lie empty for months on end while people sleep rough on the streets in sub-zero temperatures.
- Mary, London, 22/01/2009 14:11
Report abuse
Lock them in
- Jane, London, 22/01/2009 13:47
Report abuse
Hot-Dang!!! I've walked past that property so many times thinking what a shame that it is empty if-only-I-could-live-there! The owner is certainly a bit of a goof - I would have rented it at a token month-by-month rental and counted myself immensely lucky and looked after it with pride: surely that's better than either letting it stand empty or having squatters in it?
- Roz, Chamonix, France, 22/01/2009 13:41
Report abuse
I agree if the house has been empty then opening it up to people in need is a good idea, but the damage squatters never is good, i think one of their comments just proves they are just Lazy theifs not in Need as such
"Another squatter, Meg, 21, who is British, added: "It's much better when squatters move into a rich person's home like this, as the owner can obviously afford to have us here. I suppose some people would say I should get a job - but it doesn't really suit at the moment."
I wish i could have to option to say "It doesnt suit me to work" in a brown economy, with them changing tax laws and back dating taxes, this country has gone down the toilet.
- Ben, London, UK, 22/01/2009 12:36
Report abuse
Who cares? The houses have been empty for a long time. The people who have moved in are not making a mess and seem quite reasonable. Should be happy this lot moved in and not a bunch of crooks!
- Serox, Lomdon, 22/01/2009 12:18
Report abuse
Lovely.Brightens my day to see such actions.
- Kev, London-UK, 22/01/2009 11:11
Report abuse
It's a sign of the times - if these rich people with more money than sense leave these properties empty for long periods of time, what else can they expect. It is obscene that such large properties worth such ridiculous amounts of money are left completely empty and unattended when there are so many people losing their jobs, their homes and a generation of school/university leavers without much hope for the future. I say to those squatters, enjoy the experience and enjoy the comfort of your new home - you deserve to be their if the owners don't want to live there.
- Jessie, London, 22/01/2009 11:09
Report abuse
