A COUPLE have been forced to sell their home after “nimby” neighbours “shunned and ostracised them” over plans to split it in half.
Emma and Terence McGuinness have had to put the £1.5m Surrey property on the market after being slapped with a “life-changing” £150,000 court bill thanks to a fallout.
4
4
4
4
The battle, which tore through a 47-home community in the village of Oxshott, was sparked when the pair submitted planning applications for their plot.
Hopes of demolishing their four-bed home and replacing it with two properties, so Emma could have her ill dad living next door, were quickly quashed when homeowners challenged plans.
When their neighbours got wind of the potential changes, Emma and Terence said they were exiled from events on the estate.
Emma, 41, and Terence, 45, were then sued by the residents’ company Ridgeway (Oxshott) Management Ltd (ROML) – who own the private roads accessing the area.
read more on property
ROML sought an injunction banning the couple from using their roads to carry out the build.
The directors and shareholders, made up of neighbours on the estate, argued that conditions of sale and access rights restrict owners to “one plot one house”.
They also said that a two-house project would cause mayhem on the “idyllic and secluded” private estate.
During a trial in August the McGuinness’ lost their case and were told they could not go through with the plans after living in their home for 10 years.
Most read in Money
And at a further hearing which took place at Central London County Court, they were further slammed when handed the lawyers’ bill for the entire row.
It comes despite the permission previously being granted.
The McGuinness’ barrister, George Woodhead, urged Judge Simon Monty to minimise the amount ordered to pay – adding the costs would result in them having to sell up and leave.
He said in court: “What happened in August was very upsetting for my clients.
“I’m representing a family for whom the costs liability is going to be life-changing.
“My clients are selling their property to cover the costs.
“They are seeking to sell their property as a result of this litigation, and not just in regard to the costs.”
Mr Woodhead also went on to accuse some locals of “nimbyism” and “hypocrisy” after other work on the street had been allowed to happen previously.
Giving evidence, Terence said he and his family had “lost touch with people” and felt “ostracised” due to discord over their plans, while before they had mingled freely.
However, the company’s barrister Miriam Seitler pointed out that they had continued to be invited to Jubilee and Coronation street parties.
Terence said: “What I’m talking about is things like Emma no longer being part of the wine society and not mixing like she did – not having conversations at the gate and not having summer picnics with people.
“That’s the real relationship which has stopped and that’s because of the way that this has been handled.
“Certainly we felt ostracised. The last two years have been extremely difficult for us.”
Judge Monty decided to rule against the couple, finding that the conditions of the sale were “limited to the use of the plot for a single dwelling house.”
He said: “I was particularly struck by the genuinely held views of the residents, supported by ROML itself, that the ‘one plot, one house” principle is of great importance to them’.
“In my judgement, they bought Birch Mead knowing that there were restrictions in place – and if properly advised they would have been told that they could not apply to remove them – and they should be held to their bargain.
“The defendants, who lost hands down and now want a 50% costs discount.
“The claimant’s view was ‘it doesn’t matter what you offer us, it’s a point of principle and we are going to court’.
“The defendants lost. This is a dispute that had no reasonable prospect of settlement in mediation.
“It seems to me the claimant should have the whole of its costs.”
The judge ordered the couple, who have already paid £30,000, to pay another £25,000 up front.
They will also have to foot their own lawyers’ bills, the amount of which was not revealed in court, but which are thought to be substantial.
Read More on The Sun
The judge said that, as the result of losing their fight, the couple had “accepted an undertaking that they won’t develop the property by demolishing and building two properties”.
He added: “If they are found to be in breach of that undertaking, they are likely to be found in contempt of court.”
